440 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JUNE 
isolated instance of this kind. The same departure from a 
strict priority has been made in the case of Sisymbrium, 
Erigeron, Poa, Senecio, Brassica, and in fact many other impor- 
tant genera. 
Now I would not be taken as saying that usage is not a very 
excellent guide in such matters, but would merely emphasize 
the fact that if the Rochester nomenclature, in last analysis, 
really rests upon usage and not upon priority, it loses at once 
that absolute and decisive character which has been represented 
as its chief advantage. If we are not to have a consistent appli- 
cation ot priority, why overthrow hundreds of established names 
to accomplish a reform? If priority is to be modified at all, why 
not restrain it effectively by some such excellent provision as 
the fifty-year limit of the Berlin botanists? Let us have either 
a nomenclature of consistent principles or one of maximum 
immediate convenience. As I have said, the Rochester nomen- 
clature appears to be neither. It overthrows too much and 
fails to establish its new structure upon a logical basis. 
I am quite aware that the American ornithologists have stop- 
ped in their application of priority at essentially the same point 
as the Rochester and Madison reformers. The ornithologists’ 
nomenclature, however, possesses the advantage that their code 
clearly recognizes and defines this departure from its usual prin- 
ciples. The botanical code, on the other hand, wholly neglects 
to state any such exceptions, and accordingly the usage of the 
Rochester reformers is to this extent inconsistent with their own 
code. The exception in the case of the ornithologists has been 
accomplished merely by general agreement. Of course, if such 
agreement can be obtained, any system of nomenclature what- 
ever, whether consistent or inconsistent, can be made serviceable. 
But no system which is not in itself logical is likely to stand the 
test of time. 
It cannot be denied that to take any species other than the 
first as the type of a genus involves a grave inconsistency with 
the other principles of the reform. 
The much advocated principle of ‘once a synonym always 
