of their original description. It seems scarcely J 
7 nab 
- Romialist (e. re Haller, to cite a case after 175 
Ps a are cited instead of specific names, 
228 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [MARCHE 
We fear that other authors, attempting to follow these rules is 
an entirely unprejudiced manner, would not arrive at the same 
results. This, however, is distinctly an effort in the right dire 
tion, and due credit should be given for it. 
Dr. Jordan, /.c., in connection with his excellent review of 
the subject, suggests provisional rules for applying the type 
method. His rule 2, which covers the principal points at issue, 
is as follows: ‘‘If no type is designated by the author, either 
explicitly or by clear implication, then the first species referre 
to the genus or the species standing first on the page shall be 
considered as its type. A generic name should have no stand- 
ing if resting on definition alone, nor until associated with some — 
definite species.” 
With the exception of the expression ‘‘ or by clear implice : 
ements for 
simplicity, clearness, and comprehensiveness. 
to, however, as well as several exceptions whic 
seems to present very undesirable opportunities 
of personal opinion and choice, which are so 
formity. 2 
It is not our intention to attempt to offer a set of rules ee 
shall be perfect, and meet all the requirements of oul oe ft 
_ simply to avow our belief in the desirability and practt ee 
_ the type method, and to point out some of the a 
_ should be given careful consideration and investig® 
_ any rules are generally adopted. . 
Of primary importance in this conn 
a starting point for genera which may mee 
_ ance. 
_ Definite provision should also be 
genera having no binomial species 
for the exercise 
fatal to uni- 
ection is the see oe 
t with general 
made for the tre 
referred to them 
a generic name because it happened to origi 
_ that of Adanson, /. c., when definite figures of id 
