se 
os) THE ROCHESTER NOMENCLATURE 445 
sort of priority over Cerastium, and if only a part of Stellaria 
goes to Alsine, the rest (its other generic element), namely 
Stellaria cerastioides L., must in all justice be retained to stand 
for Stellaria. Its arbitrary transference, as in the ///ustrated Flora, 
_ in conclusion, that the questions here raised regarding E 
to the subsequently published genus Cerastium, is out of the 
question in any system where “ priority of publication is the 
fundamental principle of nomenclature.’ But if Stelaria ceras- 
tides, according to priority of place, represents the valid part of 
Stellaria, all the numerous Cerastiums must be rechristened under 
Stellaria, unless the reformers find it possible to reexamine Séellaria 
cerastioides and decide that it is, after all, an Alsine, a course of 
procedure which would not greatly strengthen any system. 
The facts here enumerated seem fully to justify the conclu- 
sion that the Rochester reform, notwithstanding the conscien- 
tious endeavors of its advocates, fails to offer a definite or final 
solution of the nomenclature question. It is perfectly evident 
that its application of priority, far from being consistent and 
- Universal, is subject to certain indefinite and unwritten restric- 
tions, upon which even the reformers themselves cannot agree. 
The theory of an unrestricted priority from 1753 is most seduc- 
tive, but it is now clear to many of its former advocates that, 
_ while causing much needless change, it secures in the end no 
§reater definiteness nor finality than a priority limited, let us 
Say by the fifty-year clause. Uniformity of practice can only be 
_ Secured by agreement in any case, and while the fifty-year limit 
_ May well give an excellent basis for such agreement, unrestricted 
_ Priority cannot yet be consistently interpreted by its most zeal- 
_ Ous advocates. 
As former efforts to present in a clear light certain defects 
inthe Rochester nomenclature have called forth prompt and in 
some cases wholly irrelevant criticism, it seems necessary to say, 
rysimum, 
Sisymbrium, Nasturtium, Erigeron, Stellaria, Cerastium, etc., are 
definite difficulties, and as such cannot be satisfactorily answered, 
to an intelligent public by an unwarrantable accu 
sation of per- 
i : ioritV i al. 
Sonality nor by vague panegyrics upon priority in gener 
Gray HERBARIUM. 
