ai 
86 The Botanical Gazette. (Februar, 
edge and acquaintance the contrary is true. But one my 
well pause to consider the deplorable results likely to acerit 
from the ambitious revisions of the time-honored work of ou 
greatest botanists through the opportunities opened up by tht 
new system before approving of a method which tends 
increase confusion by the multiplication of needless synonyms 
If Mr. Ward’s suggestion of doing away altogether wil 
authoritative names could be carried out it might perhaps # 
away with much of this objection by removing at least ot 
motive for it, but it is doubtful if the suggestion is practicable 
or desirable if practicable. An author’s name has a cetalf 
historic significance and value. It not only furnishes a meal 
for reference, but it is an indication of the direction in whit 
ment? Here, it seems to me Mr. Ward is somewhat inconsitt 
ent. He accuses the signers of the Harvard Circular with | 
aside for sentiment, and because Swartz’ name of Aspidill# 
happens to be in common use among fern gatherers (we 
botanists?) we are enjoined from taking up the perfectly 
a 
It is a practical application of the principles of priority “J | 
f re 
botanists who adhere to Swartz’ genera. taal 
When Swartz elaborated the genus Aspidium he origin@ 
an entirely New order of things back of which there is <r 
lutely nothing entitled to consideration. ‘«Swartz ye | 
1s 
first to reduce fern genera to anything like systematic oF 
wrote Prof. Eaton to me not long ago, and his wor has yi 
ceived the endorsement of nearly a century; of what value 
