


DPER Le Lior... 

THE ROCHESTER CODE. 
In the course of his article on nomenclatorial principles, published in the 
March issue of the BOTANICAL GAZETTE, Mr. M. L. Fernald discusses at 
some length Professor Underwood's recent treatment of the fern genera in 
this country, making the following statement in that connection: 
In Britton and Brown’s ///ustrated Flora, published in 1896, fifty-nine species of 
true ferns are “eek eit nd the names, we are told, are those authorized by the 
Rochester code. But in Professor Underwood’s latest treatment more than 25 fer 
cent. of those very species appear under different names —still the names authorized 
by the Rochester code. 
Mr. Fernald then pieeenke in support of this statement, a comparative 
table of fifteen northeastern ferns, with the names used in Britton and Brown's 
Flora and those in the last edition of Underwood’s Our Native Ferns given 
in parallel columns. This table, as an illustration of the remark above 
quoted, cannot fail to be misleading, since Mr. Fernald evidently wishes the 
reader to draw the conclusion that the Rochester code is an uncertain guide, 
and that the same author may interpret it in different ways. In order to 
_ ascertain how far such a deduction is to be considered reliable, let us analyze 
briefly the supposed divergences between Professor Underwood's interpreta- 
tion of the code in 1896 and in 1900, the dates of the two works mentioned. 
I follow substantially the same order as that of the table 
1. Onoclea Struthiopteris, being regarded by Professor Underwood now as 
generically distinct from O. sensibilis, is separated under the first available 
generic name, Matteuccia since Struthiopteris had been earlier applied to 
Lomaria, 
2. Filix replaces C seneten and Phyliitis supplants Scolopendrium 
because the first mentioned names have been proven to be the older. This is 
in strict conformity to the Ganencu of the code, notwithstanding the fact 
that conservative botanists would not admit the change. 
3- The type of Dicksonia being a tropical tree fern, the American herba- 
ceous plant is very properly separated as a genus under the first available 
name. The various species of Polystichum are also segregated from Dryof- 
éeris, and the latter name is not abandoned, as might be inferred from Mr. 
Fernald’s table. It certainly involves no novel or unusual interpretation of 
the Rochester code to divide an original aggregate into what later study may 
Prove to be distinct elements; and in the light of numerous new species of 
Igor] 285 
