BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE 229 
Art. 16 dis. flies. an example of the practical inconvenience resulting 
m the adoption of the principle of priority of place, it 
ae oe noted that this would involv oat transference of 
the species of so well-known a genus as Prunus to 
Amygdalus, which is by general consent united ee it, as 
Amygdalus precedes Prunus by a page (Sp. Pl. 1. 472-3). 
e concur on this point wit the Hearn of the 
Belgian and the Swiss botanists (‘ Propositions de 
Changements,’ p. 
Art. 37. geprein think the érinitutlll and oo system which 
as lately been introduced = ome American botanists 
is an undesirable innovatio 
Art. 57.—We find ourselve ; in spreeititl with the elaboration of 
his point (except as to the footnote) in the Amendments 
suggested by the Meith of the Gray Herbarium, pp. 3-6. 
[‘* During the last fifteen years several efforts have been made 
to unify botanical pee 5 and render it consietan with itself. 
In the course of these as yet unsuccessful reforms it has become 
evident to those iotantaia to whom nomenclature i . : means to an 
end rather than an independent science, that a strict and consistent 
nations which have been created. A very considerable part of these 
state no new classificatory facts. They have been framed to replace 
existing names on the ground that the mie had not been formed 
in accordance with certain laws. In order that the resulting nomen- 
clature might have greater definiteness many new rules have been 
With eac 
or addition of nes beige the reformers have felt justified in making 
new combinations required. These changes have become very 
annoying to te. investigate ng botanist, and it is more and more 
apparent that the rules, nokeithacadne the conscientious intent 
of their authors, have proved an excuse for change rather than a 
necessitate hundreds of changes of binomial and trinomial combi- 
nations, adding greatly to an already enormous and burdensome 
syn 
' a a oe part these changes result from a theory that a com- 
bination as such has no v validi ity. The undersigned believe that 
this is a mistaken view, and that no principle would conduce more 
to stability and convenience in the nomenclature of the spermato- 
phytes than the eae of the inviolability of a combination 
when once made. The isolated s specific or varietal name is relatively 
meaningless. It is a when combined with its proper generic 
name that it fend suitable for use as a plant-designation in 
