270 AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
in names every time a code goes out of fashion, than would be 
made by a reversion to historical priority. The criticism, if any 
there be, against our method as such, will we are sure, come only 
from the superficial opinions of such as either are unacquainted 
with the pre-Linnaean masters, or are unable to understand 
their works even if they tried to read them in the original classical 
languages. For the opinions of such we need care very little, 
and for their consolation we may ask them to refrain from un- 
reasonable criticism, because we are entitled to our point of view 
in matters of opinions as well as they are entitled to another 
opinion. 
Regarding the problem of decision as to the relative merits 
of the ancient Greek and Latin names, we must remember that 
the question was largely settled by subsequent authors even 
before Linnaeus. Our nomenclature of biology is Latin not Greek, 
and only the latter when first latinized. The very fact that hardly 
an author ever used any but latinized Greek names or derived 
Greek names for plants and animals, makes the above state- 
ment almost self-evident. The publication of the old Greek and 
Latin names was always held on a par and when absolute syno- 
nyms exsisted in both languages, the Latin name was invariably 
accepted, and up until the time of Linnaeus the Greek names 
were so carefully relegated to synonymy that it was considered 
a grave error to apply them to any newly discovered plant, even 
though their very fact of synonymy was so well known that it 
put them in a position that they could never have been mistaken 
even if newly used. No one ever presumed to use the name 
Drys for any new plant; for the older botanists knew it to be 
but the Greek name for Quercus, which every one always gave 
precedence. ‘There seems to have been an apparent exception in 
case of Pterts which may have been given precedence to the Latin 
name. Both were used and often vaguely and indiscriminately. 
No one but Linnaeus would ever have dared, unless by 
mistake, to use Ptelea for any new plant unless he thought 
it was an elm. Yet Linnaeus not caring for the confusion he 
might cause knew full well it was not an Ulmus and, because 
perhaps the name never could be used at all in nomenclature, he 
thought himself free to use it for a new American genus. We 
must give him credit at least for not forseeing that at some time, 
our superficial Greek and Latin students of today meeting the 
Se 
