59^ 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXII. Xo. 826' 



Fritz Konig, of Altona, a son of the noted 

 Berlin surgeon. 



DISCUSSION AND COSRESPONDENCE 

 1/ NOMENCLATURE AT BRUSSELS 



From the report of the chief features of the 

 rules of nomenclature adopted at the Brussels 

 Botanical Congress, which recently appeared 

 in Science/ it appears to the writer that while 

 some advance has been made, we are still far 

 from a satisfactory solution of the problem. 



One important feature of the rules adopted 

 is the establishment of multiple dates or 

 starting points for the nomenclature of differ- 

 ent groups of plants. Eight different dates have 

 been adopted and it is proposed to select still 

 others later. It is difficult to see what good 

 can be accomplished by the use of different 

 dates as starting points for different groups. 

 It has been urged that the adoption of an 

 early date, as 1753, in the ease of many 

 groups of cryptogams, involves the recognition 

 of numerous uncertain and obscure genera 

 and species. This is a difficulty which can not 

 be escaped. Whatever date may be selected 

 there will still be many of these uncertainties 

 and no manipulation or multiplication of 

 dates will serve to avoid them. If the purpose 

 IS to avoid such inconveniences, why not 

 adopt as recent a date as possible? It is 

 doubtful, however, whether we shall ever be 

 able to devise a plan which will relieve us of 

 the necessity of deciding, in many eases, 

 whether genera and species shall be discarded 

 as unrecognizable or accepted on tradition or 

 arbitrary authority. The adoption of mul- 

 tiple dates simply multiplies the difficulties of 

 applying the rules. 



The case of lichens and fungi furnish an 

 excellent illustration of this. The rules, of 

 course, do not recognize the growing belief on 

 the part of many botanists that lichens are 

 really fungi and should be treated as such 

 taxonomically and nomenclatorially. It is 

 well known to biologists that the boundaries 



'Farlow, W. G., and Atkinson, Geo. F., "The 

 Botanical Congress at Brussels," Science, N. S., 

 32, pp. 104-107, July 22, 1910. 



of all groups of living organisms are more or 

 less uncertain and indefinite and authorities 

 frequently differ as to whether a genus should 

 be placed in one group or another. Certain 

 genera are treated by some authors, even those- 

 who believe in the autonomy of the lichens, as 

 simple fungi and by others as true lichens. 

 Such cases are multiplied as each new start- 

 ing point is adopted, which necessitates the 

 drawing of new arbitrary lines of separation 

 between groups of genera and species. It 

 necessarily follows, therefore, that to reach 

 uniform results in the application of the 

 rules, there must be an arbitrary assignment 

 of all the genera involved to particular groups 

 before the date to be followed can be deter- 

 mined. 



Then again, the evolutionary and historical 

 aspects of the subject would seem to deserve- 

 some slight recognition and consideration. 

 Plant names, like everj'thing else, have a his- 

 tory and evolution which in many cases is 

 closely associated with the growth of our 

 knowledge of the biology of the organisms to- 

 which they are applied, and though we may 

 not be justified, in this utilitarian age, in the 

 opinion of some at least, in burdening science 

 with the names of the discoverers or describers 

 of genera and species and though we may 

 deny that any ethical questions are involved 

 in crediting or discrediting such persons, it is 

 doubtful whether we are justified in ascribing 

 to Fries or Persoon, or any other mycologist, 

 the genera and species of previous authors 

 which they have either confused, misconstrued 

 or appropriated entirely. Such a procedure 

 seems to be approved and endorsed by the form 

 of citation adopted by the congress as illus- 

 trated by the example given : " Boletus eduUs 

 Fr., instead of B. edulis Bull.," or the clumsy 

 form, " B. edulis Fries ex Bull." Why not 

 write B. edulis Brass. Cong., or omit entirely 

 all citation of author or authority, and thus 

 at least avoid misleading those who know 

 nothing of the history of the organism and its 

 name. 



These matters are, however, of very slight 

 importance compared with the fundamental 

 question of types, a question which does not 



