476 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XII. No. 300. 



dependent upon European patrons and cor- 

 respondents. But even after a considerable 

 independent development had been reached 

 in this country, botany remained central- 

 ized to the extent that the writings of a 

 very few masters constituted a large per- 

 centage of the published output of the sci- 

 ence, and scarcely less in America than in 

 England was the taxonomic side dominated 

 by the spirit and methods of the brilliant 

 coterie of Kew systematists. It was in- 

 evitable, however, with the spread of sci- 

 entific knowledge and the quickening of in- 

 terest in biological subjects, that the time 

 should come when systematic activity could 

 be confined no longer to a few herbaria, 

 when botany like other sciences must be 

 decentralized. Though this fact has been 

 deplored, especially by those who had en- 

 joyed a more or less complete monopoly of 

 opportunity, it must be admitted that sci- 

 entific study is one of the natural rights of 

 man about which no artificial barriers can 

 be maintained. Moreover, systematic bot- 

 any reached a stage when it became evident 

 that the last word could not be spoken from 

 the herbarium, and that the results of local 

 field study are legitimate subjects for rec- 

 ord and publication. As long as a few men 

 contented themselves with the issue of a 

 few large treatises per decade, inequalities 

 in their taxonomic views or methods of 

 nomenclature caused comparatively little 

 difficulty, each generation following with- 

 out serious confusion the recognized au- 

 thority of its time. But as workers multi- 

 plied, the annoyances of contemporary 

 differences became so great that the desire 

 for uniformity gradually crystallized into a 

 movement for the formulation of a rational 

 code of nomenclature by which all might 

 be guided. 



As often happens in reform movements, 

 a single issue became prominent, and atten- 

 tion was chiefly directed to the correction 

 of what had come to be regarded as a fla- 



grant and unreasonable abuse of the power 

 of arbitrary change of names. The prop- 

 osition known as the ' Kew Eule, ' to the 

 effect that a species might be renamed 

 whenever transferred to another genus was 

 emphatically negatived in the interest of a 

 consistent application of the principle of 

 priority. This does not mean that such a 

 rule was essentially illogical, any more than 

 was the other custom of eighteenth century 

 botanists who set aside by wholesale the 

 genera of their predecessors, substituting 

 their own improved concepts and more 

 euphonious names. Neither was the chang- 

 ing of specific names anything new ; it had 

 been customary throughout the history of 

 systematic botany, but the time had passed 

 when the scientific public could be trifled 

 with, even by the specialist sure of the 

 finality of his own conclusions. 



In spite of minor features which still 

 seem objectionable to many botanists, such 

 as the supplanting of specific names by 

 varietal, and the use of duplicate binomials, 

 the ' Rochester Rules ' have proved to be 

 a most valuable piece of progressive leg- 

 islation, the general wisdom and logical 

 authority of which it is not necessary to 

 question. At the same time it is unfortu- 

 nate that many seem to have expected the 

 new code to be final and perfect, even in 

 matters which did not come before the 

 minds of those who prepared it, but a 

 disappointment in this regard should be 

 no real hindrance to the consideration of 

 other possible improvements in nomencla- 

 torial procedure. Such finality of creeds is 

 scarcely to be expected in progessive sci- 

 ences, notwithstanding the eminent de- 

 sirability of permanence and uniformity. 

 The Rochester Code affirms the supremacy 

 of the principle of priority and provides 

 for its universal application in the nomen- 

 clature of species. The successful initiation 

 and satisfactory progress of this measure 

 but makes plainer the need of a similarly 



