THE AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 95 
has the same sound. The latter name is applied as a proposed 
segregate with Sideritis syriaca Linn., as type. As we are unable 
to find that any other attempt has been made to name them 
Chenopodiaceous plant all in the Kew Index being apparently 
proposed segregates that might at any time be reserved for their 
proper groups if raised to generic standing it is necessary to give 
a new one, for which Bushiola is proposed herewith. 
BUSHIOLA Nwd. Nom. Nov. 
Kochia Roth 1. c. (1799) not Cocchia Brevel, 1. c. (1770). 
Bushiola Scoparia (Linn.) Nwd. 
Kochia Scoparia (Linn.) Roth. Neues Jour. Bot., III, 85, 
(1809), Chenopodium Scoparia Linn., Sp. Pl., 221 (1753). 
PROPER PUBLICATION. 
That any code putting restrictions for expediency on 
“starting points’’ arbitrarily chosen for beginning nomenclature, 
contains within itself its germs of destruction, will some day 
be conclusively admitted, as better knowledge and far-sighted 
logic throw more light on these problems. Nevertheless in matters 
of plant names we fail to see that a logical structure can not 
be built on a faulty foundation without ending in chaos. Most 
of our latest codes and the American with them agree to accept 
1753 as the beginning of nomenclature for botany. No generic 
descriptions having been made in Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum, 
the generic names are to be accepted as to their validity for “‘proper’’ 
publication by reference to the Genera Plantarum of 1754 with a 
special provision of code to cover this specific instance. In the 
Vienna Code rules we are told that ‘‘the rules of nomenclature 
should be neither arbitrary nor imposed by authority,’’ (Art. 3) 
and then it proceeds in the most high-handed and arbitrary 
manner to publish over 20 pages of nomina conservanda that must 
be retained; and this because the code makers can give no good 
reason why they should be: This is done, too, without any attempt 
at exciting our humorous feelings. 
Already, much dogmatic and canonical teaching has gone 
forth as to what constitutes “‘proper publication.’’ It is not 
sufficient that for a validity of a name we be quite certain as 
to its identity. Among these “‘canons’’ required in order that 
