14 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 53. 



Rochester Code took a mucli more decided 

 stand in favor of priority, placing that very 

 word itself foremost in their code. " Prior- 

 ity of publication is to be regarded as the 

 fundamental principle of botanical nomen- 

 clature." This language is, nevertheless, 

 not quite so positive as at first reading it 

 might seem. This legislative body appar- 

 ently wished to say that the principle of 

 priority is fundamental, yet did not feel 

 warranted in saying exactly that, but said 

 instead ' is to he regarded as fundamental.' 

 Here at once a rather serious question is 

 suggested. Unless priority be quite clearly 

 fundamental, why should a body of scien- 

 tific men agree to regard it as fundamental ? 

 In code-making, of whatever sort, every- 

 thing stands or falls with the ground truth 

 or truths on which the several articles or 

 statutes rest. Error as to the ground prin- 

 ciple invalidates every rule and regulation 

 that may be builded on it. Unless some 

 one principle or set of principles may 

 be declared quite positively fundamental, 

 men waste their time in attempting to legis- 

 late ; the rules are sure to be of little actual 

 force. The authors of the Eochester Code, 

 either consciously or unconsciously, were 

 in a dilemma. They were obliged either to 

 assert that priority is fundamental or else 

 take for the ground principle of their code 

 a mere hypothesis. They chose the hypoth- 

 esis; and now, until they are ready to erase 

 the hypothetic clause ' is to be regarded as,' 

 each article which depends on the funda- 

 mentality of priority is equally hypothet- 

 ical; that is to say, is no article at all, is 

 utterly without force. 



If priority were actually the fundamen- 

 tal principle of nomenclature it would be 

 the chief criterion for the settling of the 

 names of plants and animals; the oldest 

 names would, as a rule, and without respect 

 to other qualities, be maintained. This, 

 however, is far from being the case, even 

 under the working of the so-called Ro- 



chester Code. In the case of Quercus Prinos, 

 for example, we are employing what is ab- 

 solutely the latest of the several names that 

 have been given that tree ; while the name 

 Q. castanea: folia, which not only enjoys ab- 

 solute priority, but is also the most ap- 

 propriate name of all ever given to the 

 tree, is not to be found even in the re- 

 cent synonymy of the species, and few are 

 aware of its existence ; and very numerous 

 instances of this kind could easily be ad- 

 duced. It may be added, by way of farther 

 illustration, that for three centuries the 

 common watercress was known in botani- 

 cal works by one or the other of the two 

 following names. Nasturtium aquaticum or 

 Sisymbrium aquaticum. But Linnaeus, whom 

 so many people suppose to have been the 

 founder of the binary nomenclature, re- 

 jected both these good binary names, disre- 

 garded priority, and assigned the species a 

 new and a ternary name, Sisymbrium Nas- 

 turtium aquaticum. Then again, in 1810, 

 two British botanists sought to reinvest the 

 plant with a binary name; one of these, 

 Sir John Hill, restoring the title Nasturtium 

 aquaticum, which had so many centuries of 

 priority in its favor ; the other, Robert 

 Brown, giving it still another new designa- 

 tion, i. e.. Nasturtium officinale, and yet this 

 last, the most recent of all specific names 

 for the cress, is the one which has been 

 sustained everywhere until very recently. 

 Priority certainly is not fundamental when 

 men do again and again in practice so 

 completely ignore it as to seem governed 

 by the very opposite principle, that of tak- 

 ing the newest names instead of the oldest. 

 The language of the second article of the 

 Rochester Botanical Code is, in several 

 ways, most unfortunate. Its phraseology 

 runs thus : " The botanical nomenclature of 

 both genera and species is to begin with the 

 publication of the first edition of Linnseus' 

 Species Plantarum, in 1753." I do not wish 

 to discuss the absurdity of naming, as initial 



