1896. ] The Nomenclature Question. 85 
can never be a fixed quantity. It needs but a glance at our 
manuals to show that generic and specific limitations are vari- 
ously understood by writers, and who shall be entitled to say 
which is the truly ‘‘correct” combination? Indeed the author- 
ity for the last combination is regarded as of solittle importance 
by American ornithologists that they omit it in writing the 
names of North American birds. Personally, I prefer the 
double citation, for then the history of the species becomes 
complete. The namer of the species and the authority for 
its present combination both receive the recognition justly 
due them.—F. H. KNow tron. 
Botanical nomenclature. 
Perhaps enough has been said on the subject of botanical 
nomenclature, yet I would like to offer some comments on cer- 
tain phases of it that have been made prominent by some of 
the advocates of the Rochester and Madison rules. 
It seems to be taken for granted by them that the signers 
of the Harvard circular were, and are, influenced by consider- 
ations of sentiment and prejudice in opposing the so-called re- 
it botanical nomenclature, whereas the contrary is the 
To assert that such men as Dr. Farlow, Prof. Eaton, Dr. 
Goodal 
Pathy with the spirit which subsequently found expression in 
* Harvard Circular, would permit themselves to be influ- 
e 
the * this effect only a short time before his fatal illness, that 
ce °Posed methods of reform, so-called, would tend to in- 
* father than to diminish confusion. 
i : fa the ablest paper, the fairest and most courteous that 
by ieee in defense of the new rules is that published 
Club in ‘r F. Ward in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical 
that pealily, 1895, yet Mr. Ward certainly errs in assuming 
signers of the Harvard Circular are influenced by 
ntiment and prejudice, or a ‘personal disinclination 
Set of * ¢ annoyance of accustoming themselves to a new 
mes.” Among those signers of whom I have knowl- 
