August 12, 1898.] 



SCIENCE. 



189 



world for a new bird, orchid or butterfly. Will 

 he respect a system which legislates away from 

 others an honor he so greatly covets for him- 

 self? 



There is, perhaps, no suflBcient reason why 

 we may not make any number of exceptions, 

 set chronologic limits, or otherwise minimize 

 the changes which would attend the thorough 

 application of the principle of priority, under 

 the method of types, but if ultimate uniformity 

 is our aim it will probably prove vxnwise to in- 

 clude any such modifying principles or rules ; 

 unwise, not for botanical, but for human con- 

 siderations, because there are and will be those 

 to whom the reasons for our exceptions will 

 not appear sufficient ; whose regard for the 

 system will demand its emancipation from all 

 artificial trammels, none the less because these 

 are a legacy from a past which recognized care- 

 lessly, or not at all, the principles now con- 

 sidered fundamental. A fifty-year concession, 

 for instance, is one of the specious suggestions 

 of the Continental botanists. This apparently 

 simple arrangement would duplicate the diffi- 

 culties which Dr. Eobinson finds in applying 

 the Kochester Eules. Who would decide what 

 constitutes ' use ' ? Would mention as a synonyn 

 in a compiled work like the ' Index Kewensis ' be 

 sufficient to save a name from oblivion ? What 

 about the numerous genera of fungi, for in- 

 stance, which have not been rediscovered in the 

 last half century and may not be found again 

 in the next ? That the Editor of the Synoptic 

 Flora takes ground against the Rochester Rules 

 because of their incompleteness furnishes 

 weighty evidence that there are but two prac- 

 tical nomenclatorial alternatives, a definite, 

 complete and invariable system elaborated, as 

 far as possible, on the line of a single principle, 

 or a return to the chaos of unguided individual 

 preference. Dr. Robinson must be either an 

 extreme radical or an ultra-conservative, or be 

 open to exactly the same criticism which he 

 visits upon the Rochester Rules. If these 

 Rules lack any of the attributes of a successful 

 system they must be supplied under pain of 

 ultimate oblivion, but those who do not follow 

 the Rules must either go farther, as Prof. 

 Greene and others have recently done, or they 

 must not claim consideration as apostles of 



uniformity, at least until they have proposed a 

 system which they are ready to adopt. 



The practical incompatibility of usage and 

 uniformity is well illustrated by Dr. Eobinson 

 on page 438, where, starting with a recognition 

 of the 'great value of priority,' it is soon found 

 that principles ' should be based upon usage 

 and derive their guiding power by stating, 

 generalizing and correlating usage, and not by 

 defying it.' It may be questioned whether 

 this second system sketched by Dr. Eobinson 

 is really a system at all in any practical sense, 

 since it would, as there indicated, leave nomen- 

 clature in the same condition as grammar, where 

 between conflicting rules individual taste is the 

 only arbiter. As a system all the complicated 

 parts of such a code would be open to criticism 

 and invite disagreement. Usage has never 

 produced any general or permanent uniformity 

 in manners, government, literature or science, 

 and no reasons are apparent for supposing that 

 it ever will. There could scarcely be a uni- 

 form logical system founded upon usage. The 

 idea involves a contradiction of terms, and a 

 plea for usage is, in effect, a plea for anarchy. 



To some the Eochester Code recommended 

 itself not so much as a perfect system, but 

 rather as a ground of compromise in the inter- 

 est of uniformity in nomenclature. As with 

 all compromises, neither the radicals nor con- 

 servatives are satisfied, and criticism is possible 

 from both standpoints. The existence of a 

 considerable amount of literature based on the 

 nomenclature of the Rochester Code does not 

 improve the character of that document as a 

 system, but it tends to lessen the force formerly 

 carried by the argument from usage. The event 

 shows already that the chief obstacle to uni- 

 formity is not, after all, usage, for that can be 

 changed, but that it lies rather in the elements 

 of human nature noticed above, whereby the 

 earnest systematist is impelled to insist upon 

 considerations of justice and logic which to 

 him appear axiomatic and promise universality. 

 It is becoming certain that systematic workers 

 demand a system, and Dr. Robinson emphasizes 

 the demand that the system shall be not only 

 logical and consistent, but that it be complete 

 and definite to the extent that if honestly fol- 

 lowed it will produce the uniformity which is at 



