ee Ee OF) ee ee eee ee ee 
1896. ] The Nomenclature Question. 89 
or five years international preparation for the reformed Paris 
Codex. 
But the Société botanique de France needs to be encour- 
aged by foreign botanists to arrange for such a congress, in- 
asmuch as the nomenclature questions are the least treated 
by French botanists, and the Paris Codex of 1867 was more 
the work of foreigners. 
It seems also that the French Botanical Society lacks the 
funds to prepare properly for such a congress; in your coun- 
try more is spent for science by private people than in any 
other land, so it is to be hoped that somebody will offer money 
promptly for that purpose, helping thereby to establish an in- 
ternational nomenclature of plants. 
I did not mix after 1893 in the United States botanists 
quarrels over nomenclature, considering them as home quar- 
rels. But I may say that wrong enough has been done on 
both sides, and I proved only in 1894 that the two specific 
North American rules, accepted so promptly in Madison be- 
fore the beginning of the congress there, were very bad. See 
my Nomenclaturstudien in Bull. Herb. Boissier. The BOTAN- 
ICAL GAZETTE, although most conciliatory and impartial, did 
hot print my figures, which convinced the European botanists 
about the harmfulness—if retroactive—of the two American 
tules, so I hope you will do it still. 1. ‘‘Priority in place at 
at events” from Linné’s Species Plantarum 1753 causes the 
changing of at least twenty generic names and 4,600 specific 
names. 2. The rule: ‘Once a synonym always a synonym” is 
very bad if retroactive. I gave in my Nomenclaturstudien a 
de made in a short time, of 200 generic names of personal 
vation, which would thereby be changed with about 1,737 
‘pecific names. Surely for the whole system 300-400 more 
Seneric names would lose their wsua/ names. For the future 
feo ats 's excellent; that is to say not for the ‘future diffi- 
Shits © define” but for each future case. If any one finds a 
—o renewal is necessitated by priority, he shall not 
beets it, if a former homonym exists since the international 
ane "ing of our nomenclature. That is very easy to man- 
It is 
that th 
€nna b 
trary t 
