﻿34^ 
  BOTANICAL 
  GAZETTE. 
  [December, 
  

  

  r 
  

  

  was 
  justified, 
  froia 
  his 
  own 
  stand-point 
  for 
  declining 
  to 
  award 
  them 
  space 
  

   m 
  the 
  J, 
  mrnal, 
  and 
  his 
  refusal, 
  at 
  first, 
  to 
  publish 
  them 
  has 
  in 
  ao 
  way 
  

   diminished 
  my 
  regard 
  for 
  him. 
  

  

  But 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  believe 
  that 
  my 
  reasons 
  will 
  be 
  considered 
  ridiculous 
  by 
  

   others 
  who 
  approach 
  the 
  topic 
  from 
  a 
  different 
  standpoint, 
  and 
  who 
  have 
  

   recognized 
  the 
  necessity 
  of 
  adopting 
  methods 
  of 
  procedure 
  which 
  will 
  

   render 
  the 
  system 
  of 
  nomenclature 
  stable, 
  which 
  is 
  all 
  the 
  "neo- 
  American 
  

   BCdool 
  IS 
  trying 
  to 
  accomplish 
  and 
  for 
  which 
  it, 
  and 
  all 
  naturalists, 
  have 
  

   aoundant 
  authority. 
  It 
  is 
  perfectly 
  clear 
  that 
  as 
  long 
  as 
  we 
  allow 
  our- 
  

   selves 
  a 
  choice 
  of 
  names 
  in 
  any 
  way, 
  so 
  long 
  will 
  authors 
  diflfer 
  in 
  their 
  

   acceptance 
  and 
  the 
  settling 
  of 
  this 
  important 
  matter 
  be 
  deferred. 
  That 
  

   inis 
  end 
  can 
  be, 
  at 
  least 
  approximately, 
  reached 
  by 
  priority, 
  has 
  beeu 
  the 
  

   judgment 
  of 
  most 
  recent 
  naturalists. 
  Whether 
  some 
  entirely 
  different 
  

   meinod 
  may 
  not 
  commend 
  itself 
  to 
  those 
  of 
  future 
  decades 
  or 
  some 
  rad 
  

   icai 
  modihcation 
  of 
  the 
  principles 
  now 
  employed 
  be 
  resorted 
  to, 
  it 
  is 
  at 
  

   present 
  impossible 
  to 
  surmise. 
  It 
  is, 
  perhaps, 
  not 
  unlikely 
  that 
  some 
  

   !^ 
  fl°^°!t 
  "^'^^ 
  ^^ 
  "'^^^- 
  The 
  American 
  Ornithologists 
  Union 
  settled 
  it 
  

   mnM 
  a 
  A 
  I 
  ^^'■^ 
  concerned, 
  by 
  driving 
  bird 
  names 
  back 
  as 
  far 
  as 
  they 
  

   W 
  i.!r 
  • 
  .^^ 
  ^ 
  \^^y 
  adopted 
  the 
  results 
  thus 
  reached, 
  so 
  that 
  they 
  

   h««L^,!! 
  ""T'",*^'"®,^ 
  ^^' 
  a 
  considerable 
  number 
  of 
  years. 
  This 
  process 
  

  

  Xw 
  w 
  f 
  '^ 
  '^^1^ 
  ^^ 
  ^^"^^ 
  «*ers, 
  but 
  has 
  not 
  been 
  put 
  into 
  operation 
  

   elsewhere, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  lam 
  infnrrvo^ 
  *' 
  

  

  \T^?}' 
  ^^ 
  ^^ 
  ^ 
  ^'^ 
  informed, 
  

   that 
  All 
  ^a 
  ^^l"r^' 
  "",^^^ 
  '^^ 
  present 
  methods 
  of 
  botanists 
  it 
  is 
  important 
  

   thLrpii^T 
  '^'*^.°^^^°'^^ 
  be 
  removed 
  as 
  far 
  as 
  ths 
  is 
  possible. 
  For 
  

   as 
  authS, 
  r^l'^ 
  *^^ 
  " 
  ^^^ 
  " 
  of 
  the 
  Paris 
  Congress 
  cited 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Britten 
  

   riment.l 
  i^i^'J 
  ^^^ 
  ""'^ 
  ^^ 
  ^"^« 
  rather 
  than 
  Tissa 
  aa 
  unfortunate 
  and 
  det^ 
  

  

  ThP 
  «^?^i^° 
  °o* 
  consider 
  myself 
  at 
  all 
  bound 
  to 
  follow 
  it. 
  

   itv 
  of 
  nkl 
  !^ 
  . 
  ^^^^^ 
  ^^ 
  ^hich 
  change 
  is 
  desirable 
  by 
  reason 
  of 
  pnor- 
  

   and 
  ^P^^IVt 
  inn 
  ^/r« 
  Mr. 
  Britten 
  cites 
  the 
  one 
  of 
  Amygdolus 
  Ur^n 
  

   the 
  second 
  .nJ' 
  -H 
  ^'^^ 
  standing 
  on 
  a 
  page 
  preceding 
  the 
  position 
  

   all 
  tEnpH^^^P^'^^^'^^^'^tthathe 
  thinks 
  it 
  would 
  be 
  necessary 
  to 
  call 
  

   for 
  a 
  wEtn 
  "^i"^ 
  ^?.^««««. 
  Amygdali. 
  It 
  certainly 
  would 
  be 
  strange 
  

   ortunate 
  P.L'^f 
  ' 
  ^^'' 
  substitution, 
  but 
  I 
  think 
  he 
  has 
  selected 
  an 
  un- 
  

   l^ 
  qufte 
  Tl^}^ 
  ^\«upport 
  of 
  his 
  argument. 
  While 
  it 
  would 
  probabl.r 
  

   personaLnrpr 
  TP^',''''* 
  *° 
  <^a" 
  a 
  plum 
  a 
  peach, 
  as 
  a 
  peach 
  a 
  plum, 
  I 
  

   C 
  ?1'^-F.^^«'"t9«allapeachaneach.and 
  am 
  nrenared 
  to 
  mamtam 
  

  

  CO//.K 
  e2;«:5:Tc%.^''''"'' 
  ^'"''"' 
  

  

  "Biology" 
  again. 
  

  

  own 
  senTiients 
  tn 
  kI^^'?^^' 
  editorials 
  which 
  admirably 
  voi^e^^^^jj 
  

   in 
  the 
  Octobp? 
  n 
  "^K^^^.b^^^ 
  "struggling 
  for 
  utterance," 
  and 
  the 
  repf 
  

   tempted 
  to 
  add 
  a 
  wSd'' 
  ^^^ 
  '^ 
  """^^ 
  interested 
  me 
  that 
  I 
  am 
  over 
  

  

  " 
  ^oZgy'^ll 
  ZfT^'^r 
  ^°'^l"gi8ts 
  have 
  become 
  ashamed 
  of 
  the 
  wo'^ 
  

   as 
  havfwe 
  ?or 
  shHnif-^ 
  T^ 
  precisely 
  the 
  same 
  reason 
  for 
  such 
  a 
  feeling 
  

   reason 
  for 
  clai 
  min 
  l"^ 
  ^'^"' 
  " 
  ^^tany 
  ; 
  " 
  and 
  we 
  have 
  precisely 
  the 
  .me 
  

   who 
  writes 
  "n 
  Z 
  nl* 
  K 
  *^*"^ 
  " 
  bi«J«gy 
  " 
  as 
  they. 
  Your 
  correspond 
  "'- 
  

   could 
  claim 
  thlt«i?K?'^^'-°"'"ber, 
  misses 
  the 
  real 
  point 
  entirely 
  If 
  ^^ 
  

   of 
  ^oology%^^fii^fioglcal 
  p^ 
  can 
  be 
  de'duced 
  from 
  the 
  fac^ 
  

  

  word 
  biSlogy? 
  » 
  '^.7/ 
  '''^^^^> 
  then 
  say, 
  " 
  Why 
  should 
  not 
  he 
  claim 
  "^ 
  

   were 
  not 
  yet 
  bemin 
  if-'"'^'^' 
  ^^^^ 
  though 
  the 
  biological 
  study 
  of 
  plaf 
  

  

  yet 
  begun, 
  his 
  claim 
  is 
  wholly 
  unfounded 
  Though 
  it 
  be 
  true 
  

  

  