178 THE AMERICAN MIDLAND NATURALIST 
Of the 16 names adopted in the first edition of the Manual 
only Xolisma and a part of Polygonum have been preserved 
in the District Flora; some others are even different from 
those adopted by Dr. Britton, viz. Aureolaria, Rulaé, Nothol- 
cus, Bilderdykia and Campe. If we compare Polygonum with 
this genus in Glacier Park Flora (1. ¢.), we notice that Bil- 
derdykia, Persicaria and Bistorta are all included in Poly- 
gonum. It is also interesting to compare the names of Brit- 
ton and Brown’s Illustr. Flora of 1896 with those adopted in 
the second edition, 1913; according to the table the second 
edition of Britton and Brown’s Ill. Flora contains not less 
than 18 names, which differ from those adopted in the first 
edition. This comparison includes only 16 genera adopted by 
Gray (1857) ; if we had extended it to all the genera accepted 
by Gray, the number of changes would be immense. So after 
all the American Code of nomenclature cannot boast of either 
stability or consistency. ‘ 
Most of the writings of the advocates of this code disclose 
a further characteristic, which it seems would tend to upset 
the stability of much of their nomenclature. This is the 
absurd and preposterous method of name-formation adopted 
by many of these. We remember for instance Galeorchis, 
Rubacer, Saxifragopsis, Stellariopsis, and among the specific 
names such as: Yellowstonensis, Coloradoensis, perglobosa, 
tumulicola, nubicola, fissuricola, concinnoides, graminoides, 
pseudorepens, pseudospectabilis, pseudopubescens, etc. Violent 
crosses are rarely stable. 
I beg leave to recommend the reading of Alph. De Candolle’s 
paper “Lois de la nomenclature botanique” (Paris 1867), 
where we are told to reject such names as are a combination 
of two languages eu used with a latin name, sub with a greek, 
oides, opsis, pseudo with a latin, etc. The fact that such 
names actually exist and still are being proposed does not 
speak in favor of the authors being capable of interpreting 
even the simplest diagnosis in latin. No wonder the American 
Code does not demand the diagnoses of new species to be 
written in latin! In consequence of such facts we are entitled 
.to doubt the correctness of many of the nomenclatorial chang- 
es proposed by these authors. 
From a merely practical point of view the steadily proposed - 
