BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE 231 
drawn code it should be soar ~~ four or pc different generic 
e sam ha 
it seems hight inexpedient to make in any hese subjects 
ny important sacrifice to secure a superficial and relatively un- 
important agreement of method. Surely any investigator with a 
capacity so great as to work successfully in more than one of 
these wide dieoi pli should be able to grasp and apply with- 
ne a difficulty two or three slightly different systems of 
ne The ‘chict reasons for maintaining the first binomial i mg ete ng 
with the nomenclature of the spermatophytes are: (1) T earliest 
first usable name. (2) As soon as such a designation has been 
created, showing at once the specific status and the correct generic 
later combinations, even if framed with the purpose of re- 
latins a neglected specific name, are of no practical importance, 
o far more to enccmbee than to clarify nomenclature. (3) The 
legalization of the first gene a eorredt binomial has the great 
placed. It thus acts as a useful check upon the vague tendencies 
of any more alimited form of priority. In this connection it may 
be pointed out that any such provision as the fifty year limit, pro- 
posed by the distinguished Berlin botanists to simplify nomenclature 
by eliminating certain vague and obsolete generic names, beco 
h 
and objectio nable names as ae Cacia, Opuntia Opuntia, 
Jerastium cerastioides, ete., these having arisen, almost without 
exception, as later combinations. (5) The rule of priority under 
the genus is easy to apply. In general it is a relatively — 
matter to determine the ee ae ni to a given specie 
