188 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. VIII. No. 189. 



not work under this method it cannot be justly 

 applied to their groups. This criticism is, how- 

 ever, entirely misplaced, for strict justice would 

 result in setting aside nearly all their genera, as 

 they served those of their predecessors, for 

 scarcely any were adequately defined. The 

 modern custom is not only just, but generous, 

 since it proposes to incorporate and give perma- 

 nent recognition to groups which under their au- 

 thors' theories would be in continued jeopardy. 

 The method of definition and the method of 

 types tend, indeed, to converge in practice and 

 might ultimately coincide as knowledge became 

 perfect. The point of view, however, has a 

 very important bearing on the question of sta- 

 bility of generic names during the constant 

 process of change which increasing insight 

 into nature must work in any system of classi- 

 fication. If a genus is a definition its applica- 

 tion will continue a matter of individual pref- 

 erence and doubt, but if a genus is a group of 

 species it will, in accordance with the law of 

 priority, bear the oldest name first used to 

 designate any of its members. The method of 

 types as applied to genera rests, accordingly, 

 on a more important consideration than its con- 

 venience as a rule of nomenclature, and the use 

 of the first species as the type of the genus in 

 cases where the author did not himself desig- 

 nate a type has a more important sanction than 

 attaches to it as an extreme development of the 

 principle of priority, for it, or some similar rule, 

 is necessary to any system which undertakes to 

 produce stability in the application of generic 

 names. The only alternative method yet sug- 

 gested is that of elimination ; it is an inven- 

 tion of the idealistic school, is ambiguous 

 and difiicult of application, and is directly 

 inimical to stability, since one readjustment 

 in generic names may necessitate numerous 

 others, even in distinct families. The method 

 of types renders the application of generic 

 names absolutely stable, and by this very sta- 

 bility provides the flexibility so necessary in 

 allowing classification to keep pace with in- 

 creasing knowledge. To secure these ends 

 seems quite as important as much of the exist- 

 ing legislation, but several American botanists 

 of prominence to whom these reasons have been 

 presented at length, while admitting the cor- 



rectness of the contention, hesitate, like Dr. 

 Robinson, to advise the sweeping changes 

 which would be required. 



The second element which, if not overlooked, 

 has not been formally reckoned with in plans 

 for nomenclatorial uniformity is human nature. 

 Some have believed that almost any system or 

 treaty of agreement once adopted by a majority 

 would soon become universal. 



Drs. Kuntze and Robinson deny this with 

 emphasis. The former says: "The rules of 

 nomenclature should neither be arbitrary nor 

 imposed by authority. They must be founded 

 on considerations clear and forcible enough for 

 every one to comprehend and be disposed to 

 accept." (Codex Emendatus, Art. 2.) And 

 Dr. Robinson makes two separate declarations 

 to the same effect : ' ' Surely those who have 

 themselves discarded hundreds of names which 

 had stood unchallenged for nearly a century 

 should not feel that they are establishing their 

 system merely by putting it into use. The 

 only way it can be established is by making it 

 so reasonable and consistent that it will com- 

 mand general respect and approbation." (P. 

 438.) "But no system which is not in itself 

 logical is likely to stand the test of time." (P. 

 440.) 



These strike the keynote of the whole ques- 

 tion of systems. There are those, and not a few, 

 who will yield adherence to no system which 

 does not appear to them coherent, complete, 

 catholic. The system, if anything, must be 

 everything ; considerations of convenience have 

 little weight with these true systematists. Any 

 exception, deviation or ambiguity is a blot 

 which disfigures the whole fair page and must 

 be removed at any cost of time or pains. It is 

 of no use to say that all nomenclature is for con- 

 venience merely ; that it is a means, not an 

 end ; that its purpose is to save, not increase, 

 labor. Then, too, it is idle to leave out of 

 account the personal and moral elements. The 

 satiated describer of hundreds of species may 

 profess that the question of justice is not perti- 

 nent, but justice is, and doubtless will remain, 

 at least equally important with logic. If we 

 do not realize this ourselves we need only ob- 

 serve the enthusiastic amateur who leaves the 

 luxuries of wealth and position to ransack the 



