442 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JUNE 
not be made, as by the reformers, the type of a subsequently 
published genus, Roripa. 
It is needless to multiply such examples. Cases in point are 
many, sO numerous, in fact, that the reformers, having gone 
thus far in the quest of priority, have suddenly been appalled by 
the amount of change necessary for further advance, and have, 
accordingly, with no word of explanation, abandoned the pur- 
suit of the principle. But this is stopping the reform not at the 
goal to which its accepted principles lead, but arbitrarily, and 
just where it happens to be convenient, surely a disappointing 
outcome for such an ambitious and widely heralded revision. 
This question regarding the type species of a composite genus 
is not new. It was well discussed by Mr. O. F. Cook? in 1895, 
when he urged, upon the basis of his studies in the Myxomycetes, 
that the only satisfactory solution was the uniform acceptance of 
the first species as the generic type. A subject so important to 
the Rochester reform should certainly have received the prompt 
attention of the Nomenclature Committee, but far from taking 
any definite or satisfactory action which could be a guide to 
others, the members themselves, as their divergent practices 
clearly show, have been quite unable to agree upon this point. 
The majority, it is true, still use Erysimum, Sisymbrium, Erig- 
eron, etc., in their conventional meaning, but one member has 
boldly faced the issue and refuses longer to accept Erysimum 
in its old sense, since it is clear that its first species was a 
Sisymbrium. All our American species of Erysimum are 
accordingly transferred by him to Cheiranthus. This change is 
carried one step further ina recent American flora,} where we find 
that not only our Erysimums have gone to Cheiranthus,but Sisym- 
brium is called Erysimum. As each generic change of this sort 
implies the ultimate formation of many new binomial combina- 
tions, the end of this felicitous settlement of our nomenclature 
question is not yet in sight. 
When questioned as to the uniform acceptance of the first 
species of a genus as to its type, advocates of the Rochester 
* Bull. Torr. Bot. Club 22: 433. 3 HowELL, Fl. N. W. Am. 1: 38-56. 
