176 THE AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
tific work is so contrary to science, that the inevitable result 
Will necessarily be anything but scientific. 
Now with reference to the nomenclature, we have seen from 
the preceding, that the so-called American Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature has been followed except that duplicate binom- 
ials have not been used. It is not necessary to discuss at : 
leneth the merits of this Code, nor its disturbing influence; 
its lack of consistency has long ago been attested by various 
authors of prominence, for instance by Professor M. L. 
Fernald, * not to mention the fact that most of our eminent 
botanists published a signed protest against it. 
In the accompanying table I have selected, at random, 16 
genera from Gray’s Manual in order to give the reader some 
idea of the changes involved by introducing this nomencla- 
ture, the so-called American. According to this table the 16 
genera taken from Gray’s Manual (1857) represent not less 
than 28 in the new Flora of the District of Columbia; while 
only one of these (Andromeda) has been divided into two 
genera in the last edition of the Manual. The only other 
change is the placing of Negundo under Acer. 
* Bot. Gaz. Vol. 31 and 32, 1901. 
