
| 
Igor] NOMENCLATORIAL PRINCIPLES 197 
closely the constant haggling over names, the situation is quite 
as puzzling. The Rochester Code was formulated ostensibly to 
establish uniformity in our names. Its followers have worked 
vigorously to comply with its rulings. From time to time 
their attention has been publicly called to fundamentally weak 
spots in its wording. Again they have been asked to explain 
certain of their names seemingly inconsistent with their prin- 
ciples. Yet these criticisms have generally been ignored. 
Instead of strengthening the weak spots in their rules and cor- 
recting self-evident mistakes in their names, the reformers have 
faithfully clung to the discredited gods they had already set up. 
These statements are not extravagant nor vague generalizations. 
They are simple conclusions drawn from the facts presented in 
this discussion, and from others very apparent upon many recent 
pages. Is this the best the Rochester Code can do? Is this 
what we are to call “uniformity?” 
If we are really desirous of obtaining stability in our nomen- 
clature, and if at the same time the “question of practical 
utility’ is to be considered, our clearest course cannot be by the 
Rochester Code, especially as followed by its originators. We 
shall, however, find a comparatively clear and practical method 
by adopting in our selection of generic names the Berlin rule; 
and in our selection of specific names, the so-called Kew rule of 
retaining the first specific name used under the accepted genus. 
In this way we are able to retain a very large proportion of the 
long-established and best-known combinations, without the 
necessity of wading (often blindly) through the mazes of 
obscure and poorly indexed literature. And, what is better, 
after comparatively slight alteration of the long-established 
names, we can feel that in only very rare cases must we abandon 
those known to practically all botanists. If, like Professor 
Ward, we all feel that “it is no longer a question of credit, but 
a question of practical utility,” is not this simpler course worth 
testing ? 
Gray HERBARIUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY. 
