10 BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE 
From these pence amma genera, considered by Linnaeus and 
other authors at one time as “eae , at another time as sections, a 
systematic doeuiers is easy ; only two dubious cases occur: the first 
rare case is that the same group (a) received two names, such as 
Sida and Malvinda; then the genus name, which received first a 
species name, is vali e other case is that three to four names 
occur for the same now united group; then the name under which 
they were first correctly united is to be valid. For instance, | q 
Lonicera 1787 consists of four genera, and is thus confused; Haller 
after exclusion of the genera not belonging thereto, first uated 
Caprifolium, Periclymenum, Chamaecerasus, Xylosteum ‘under Capri- 
folium. Lobelia P1. is correctly defined as a §, and is therefore to 
be excluded; the rest was named then at first Bapuntium, en 
w nam 
if their name — not secured from the § of 1737—e.g. Helianthe- 
mum. The name Cactus, after exclusion of the §§ of 1787, remains 
good for the seiinindens part. 
In contrast to these great advantages and savings of the 1737- 
starting-point, there are—see my Revisio Generum III, chapters 27 
and 28—to be changed with the 1753-starting-point the names of 7100 
peaned and 129 genera, whereof only 29 genera with 152 species 
are named up to the present time. Furthermore, 46 genera thereo 
with 3621 species would have still to receive new and unusual names, 
instead of those introduced from the earlier starting-point. ut 
even with this the number of these changes is not finis hed, because 
the starting-point of 1753 for genera has not yet been completely 
worked out. This 1753-starting-point is thus not only h orribly 
noxious but also unscientific, as it misses the genera- mertones and 
nearly all the named genera-sections. Only the 1737-starting- babs 
is practicable, wecue and economical for genera. Perhaps a gen 
convention may be agreed upon to the effect that the 1737- sartioid 
point be valid for geners; 1758 for species with future exclusion of all 
intermediate works—that is, of all publications between Linneus’ 
Genera Plantarum 1737 and Species Plantarum 1758. 
the adoption te oo”. the date of Linnzus’ first edition of the 
reference to the Systema of 1735. The Paris 
Laws a Botanical Natecaalsiiro (1867), art. 15, would have seemed 
tion the use of the names in the publication of 1735, had not 
they ashiralls been bare ng without descriptions or characters, 
and therefore barred by ar 
r. Kuntze’s constding proposal i is remarkable and arbitrary, 
and dcabtlees $0 to many minds will appear unfair as well as incon- 
sistent ee sound principles. It is ys the effect that, sa taking 
nus’ Genera Plantarwn of 1787 for the starting-point of genera 
and the Sipeciae Plantarum of 1758 for that of species, all publications 
between these dates be in future for ever excluded. It is difficult to 
see why, if 1737 be made the starting-point, the Corollarium Generum 
Ss 
‘ 
; 
