155 



III 11 , indicating the facts against the Rochester resolutions, which 

 I had sent them ad referendum, they did not refer. Then Pro- 

 fessor Underwood abstained from all reports and critics in Bull. 

 Torr. Club. But lately, in another publication of that Club, 

 Torreya, such reports and critiques have begun anew, and the 

 editors of the Bulletin having been changed, there is hope of 

 amelioration and revocation of their incapable Rochester reso- 

 lutions. 



>]< if if if if if if if if if 



It may not be forgotten that there is now more danger than 

 ever for the international nomenclature by four cliques. 



i. The clique of Engler, who scoffs at the regulation by a Con- 

 gress (Rev. gen. Ill 11 , page 68) renouncing to have his rules 

 sanctioned by a "so-called " general botanic Congress. Never- 

 theless he was " elected " with eight of his collaborators into the 

 second international commission for the Congress, though by a 

 mysterious manner. One of his collaborators (Briquet) has 

 caused or participated to the arrangement of that falsified com- 

 mission, and another of his collaborators (R. von Wettstein) has 

 caused or participated to give illegal right of voting to the mem- 

 bers of this commission in favor of Engler. English and Amer- 

 ican botanists did not receive the circulars for the Congress in 

 English language and were thus repulsed from a Congress that 

 could thereby become partial. See also ABZ. 1902 : 164. 



2. The Kew clique, which recognizes only the Kew Index. 

 The present director of the Royal Kew Herbarium and Gardens, 

 Sir William Thiselton Dyer, is perfectly innocent as to the servile 

 Kew Index with its Kew obscuration principle and Kew falsifi- 

 cation principle (see note 27, page xlviii), because Sir William 

 never was a collaborator of the Kew Index. Even he declared 

 its names as no standard ones. In a presidential address given 

 at Ipswich in 1895 in the botanic section of the British Associa- 

 tion (see Journal of Botany, 1896 : 306), he had proclaimed : " It 

 is a mistake to suppose that the Kew Index expresses any opinion 

 as to the validity of the names themselves." But when I invited 

 him to attach himself to international tendencies of nomenclature 

 I received the strange answer : " We have our own nomencla- 



