The nomenclature question. 
Some inconsistencies in plant nomenclature. 
In a recent unpublished letter a prominent botanist call 
attention once more to an argument that has often been matt 
use of by the opponents of the so-called ‘‘reform” movemett 
in botanical nomenclature: namely, that a motive, if notit 
deed the prime motive, for all this upsetting of names is 0 
be found in the desire of the reviser to append his own nail 
to all possible combinations of genera and species; in othet 
words, that the sole end and aim of this nomenclatorial ag: 
tation is the theoretical opportunities it gives for incompetett 
writers to juggle with the names of our plants with the put 
pose of constituting themselves the authority for as many® 
possible. Asa matter of fact nothing could have been fat 
ther from the minds of the nomenclature committee than thi 
feature; and it was largely to obviate just such a possibility 
that the reform movement originated. By setting an initia 
ture behind which it is agreed not to go, and referring each 
species to the oldest subsequent name, the matter become 
fixed for all time. It is unfortunate that it is found necess#] 
to change so many of our plant appellations, but when om 
so changed in accord with this logical principle, we shall 
it seems to me, a practically stable system of nomenclatut 
Other departments of biology have long since found it nec® 
Sary to adopt similar rules, and their experience proves pie 
clusively that it isa reform which reforms. The Americ# 
ornithologists, for example, have been obliged to make i 
than one per cent. of corrections during the ten years 4PPY” 
Cation of their code, and not one of these corrections WaS ©" ~ 
to mere personal opinion ; the nomenclature of North Am® 
ican birds is therefore Practically stable, and I can see 0° ie 
son why the botanists may not consequently hope for 38 
ilar fixation of plant names. ici 
In order to show that the principle is open to crite 
which regards the last author of a combination of genus * 
Species as more important than the original namer of et: 
plant, I take the liberty of citing a number of examples us 
the Synoptical Flora of North America 17: 397-407, the Be 
[82] 
