748 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 935 



culminating in one or two published " codes," 

 served to accentuate the demand for a more 

 general agreement as to what should be good 

 botanical practise. 



Most botanists have had in hand for about 

 three months Briquet's report and compila- 

 tion of the code as modified by the Brussels 

 congress, and they have had time to consider 

 the wisdom of the more recent changes and 

 additions, and the adequateness of the code as 

 a whole. In considering this code we must 

 not overlook the fact that we have secured the 

 recognition of our chief contention, namely, 

 the " law of priority." So too we have se- 

 cured the recognition of the necessity for a 

 heginning date for nomenclature. And to- 

 day the original name of the species is prefer- 

 ably retained, whatever generic wanderings it 

 may suffer, and a name which has become a 

 synonym can not be used for another plant. 

 Even in regard to publication and the use of 

 parentheses the essentials that we contended 

 for have been enacted into law. Only in re- 

 gard to the use of specific names which repeat 

 the generic name does the new code run coun- 

 ter to the practise of many American botan- 

 ists, and it must be said for this latter point 

 that few of us would care to insist strenuously 

 upon the acceptance of our practise. 



So we have succeeded in having most of 

 what we demanded included in the botanical 

 code, but as always happens when legislation 

 is had, some things have been added that are 

 not at all to our liking. Thus with the under- 

 lying principles (Arts. 1 to 18) no fault need 

 be found, but in our opinion the Brussels 

 congress made a series of blunders in Art. 19, 

 when it selected the starting points for the 

 nomenclature of various groups. In fact here 

 there was evidently a hopeless confusion of 

 " starting points " with complete mono- 

 graphs, resulting in the designation of not 

 less than twenty different dates, in eight pub- 

 lications, with at least four more groups still 

 to be heard from. When it is suggested that 

 the point of beginning for some algfe is 1753 

 (Linne's " Sp. Plant."), while for others it is 

 any place from 1891 to 1893, and for still 

 others 1886, and for others again 1848, while 



for one little family (Oedogoniaceae) it is as 

 late as 1900, it is pretty evident that the law 

 makers forgot what they were doing. This 

 matter of starting points for nomenclature 

 will have to be revised by men who can " keep 

 their heads " ! 



Then while the law of priority is sanctioned 

 (Art. 15) the vicious practise is enlarged of 

 making exceptions (nomina conservanda) of 

 names that are to be retained in spite of the 

 law. Such " special legislation " reminds us 

 of what political legislatures sometimes do 

 when exceptions are made in favor of " spe- 

 cial interests," but certainly such things ought 

 not to be done by a body of scientific men. 

 The Brussels Congress augmented the lists of 

 nomina conservanda, and in doing so showed 

 more forcibly than at Vienna that the lists 

 have no scientific basis, but that they rest 

 upon the prejudices and preferences of a few 

 botanists who object to the use of unaccus- 

 tomed names for certain plants. Prejudice 

 and individual preference have no rightful 

 place in determining scientific nomenclature. 

 One is inclined to quote here the final article 

 (58) — " The rules of botanical nomenclature 

 can only be modified by competent persons at 

 an international congress convened for the 

 express purpose," and to malve the very ob- 

 vious remark that it may be questioned 

 whether all of the work before us was done by 

 " competent persons." In the opinion of the 

 writer this question must be answered in the 

 negative for some parts of the code. 



Now, what shall we do in regard to this 

 code? There are those who boldly say that a 

 code so drawn up should not be obeyed, and 

 accordingly they ignore such of the rules as 

 they do not approve. And the temptation to 

 do so is very great, especially in regard to the 

 starting points of nomenclature, and the 

 nomina conservanda, but we are convinced 

 that the wiser policy will be to accept the code 

 as a whole, and obey its dicta. Of course it is 

 never an agreeable thing to have to do what 

 our judgment disapproves, but the only way 

 that we can make progress is to submit to the 

 code as it is, with the determination, that we 

 will bring about the desirable revisions and 



