1892. ] Editorial. 207 
EDITORIAL. 
THE RECENT upheavals in nomenclature, culminating in the work of 
Otto Kuntze, are too well known to need recapitulation. It had be- 
come evident to most botanists that some agreement must be reached 
or confusion would become worse confounded. This feeling found 
public expression in Europe in the circular recently issued from Ber- 
lint containing certain propositions which were submitted to 
working botanists for their signature. It is presumed that the results 
thus obtained were to be presented to the International Congress at 
Genoa. In this country a circular with the same purpose was sent out 
from New-York and Washington, and was the means of discovering 
among botanists a wide-spread desire for an agreement upon matters 
ofnomenclature. It was felt that work in systematic botany was losing 
force amidst the uncertainties of nomenclature, and that almost any 
letters containing expressions of opinion from many who were absent. 
The subject was not sprung in a formal meeting, but about twenty-five 
botanists, representing every shade of opinion, met informally and 
thoroughly and frankly discussed every point. Every one was ready 
to make concessions for the sake of agreement, and the principles 
finally adopted represent a resultant of various concessions. It was 
felt that this amicable feeling must be strengthened by an immediate 
HE OPINION of the CazeTre the paper adopted represents ® 
thoroughly wise compromise, alike honorable to all concerne 
Preparation, as witnessing a far greater desire to 
n 
pinion should be lost sight of for the general good. as 
THIS ACTION of American botanists will be presented at Genoa, 
*See this journal for August, p. 267. 
