76 T O R R E Y A 



designate individuals as representatives to botanical congresses but for the 

 most part they have been unwilling, or thought it unwise, to contribute toward 

 the expense of attendance. The final assembly has been made up, therefore, not 

 necessarily of those best qualified but of those individuals who have been willing 

 to finance a trip in order to take part in the proceedings. The departments of 

 our national government sometimes send "official delegates" to international 

 congresses but they usually place restrictions on the activities of such delegates. 

 I hope I am giving away no secret when I say that an employee of our federal 

 government told me when we were in attendance at an International Botanical 

 Congress that he was instructed before leaving this country that he might 

 take part in the discussions but was not allowed to vote on the questions com- 

 ing before the section on nomenclature. The conclusion seems to be justified 

 that the advancement of this phase of natural history, of the greatest importance 

 to mankind, has been too dependent upon voluntary contributions of the 

 workers themselves. 



It is also generally conceded that rules of nomenclature should not be 

 arbitrary and that they cannot be imposed by authority — at least not by the 

 authority of the makers of the rules. As an alternative the framers of the rules 

 say, "They must be simple and founded on considerations clear and forcible 

 enough for everyone to comprehend and be disposed to accept." Such a state- 

 ment was made in the Rules as published in 1912 which were adopted in 

 1905 (Vienna) and supplemented in 1910 (Brussels). Perhaps rules of 

 nomenclature are like a plant which grows slowly and requires a period of 

 development before it comes to maturity. I do not know how many people 

 did not comprehend the International Rules of Vienna and Brussels but I do 

 know that in the following years many were disposed not to accept. There were 

 individuals and groups of individuals who deplored the fact that certain 

 fundamental principles of a basic nature in which they believed were not 

 incorporated. They felt that once they accepted a code without these principles 

 the chances for amendment would not be good. I have in mind chiefly the 

 "type-concept" which was not a part of the original code. Reference to a more 

 or less minor feature may serve to illustrate difficulties regarding adoption. 

 The Vienna code provided that "On and after January 1, 1908^ the publica- 

 tion of names of new groups of recent plants will be valid only when they are 

 accompanied by a Latin diagnosis." Again I do not know how many names 

 have since been published which are invalid, but I do recall taking part in a 

 business session of a certain mycological society, at least 25 years after the 

 Latin deadline, when the matter before the house was whether that rule 

 should be enforced in its official journal. 



It seems fair to say that cordial agreement was reached at the Cambridge 

 Congress in 1930 on most of the disputed nomenclatorial problems and that 



