﻿278 UNNAEA OR OBOLARIA? 



We may consider the matter from whatever point of view it 

 must be inferred that Linnaeus had changed Obolaria Sieg. into his 

 Linnaea. Thus, I think, Mr. Jackson's statements have been 

 proven to be fallacies. — If we take the year 1735 as starting-point 

 Obolaria Sieg. must be preferred ; but in case of 1737 as starting- 

 point Linnaea L. ought to be valid. 



In conclusion I wish to protest that it be a "Kuntzean fable" — 

 as Mr. Jackson wrote /. c. p. 27 :— Mr. Jackson having effected 

 an entire change of front since my Revisio gen. pi. in 1891 came 

 on the scene. What Mr. Jackson quotes for "demolishing this 

 fable " proves only and shows very correctly that Mr. Jackson was 

 willing to commence his nomenclature with 1735 and that from 

 and after 1753 he would let in application only a different ortho- 

 graphy, if any. But after the publication of my Bevisio gen. pi. in 

 1891 he has disowned his former starting-point of 1735 and called 

 the same now "Dr. Kuntze's arbitrary starting-point" (see J. of 

 Bot. 1892 p. 57 and my notices No. 5 and 21 of my Rev. Ill) 

 willing just as Mr. Hemsley (see Nature 24th Dec. 1891 p. 172 . . .) 

 to commence with 1753 and hoping that 4/5 of all my proposed 

 names would fall by his changing of the starting-point of nomen- 

 clature into 1753. Later on after I had proved this to be a mistake, 

 he finished the Kew Index in accordance with his former plan, 

 without applying, however, the lex prioritatis even in cases free 

 from doubt, as, to be sure, he promised it formerly. For he wrote 

 in Journ. Bot. 1887 p. 68 : " But whilst strenuously advocating 

 strict priority as the only sure foundation for nomenclature, it can only 

 be applied when free from doubt." Why gave Mr. Jackson figures 

 at all of year-numbers of first publication to the names when he did 

 not make the slightest use of such dates now ? 



Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hemsley have misled the majority of 

 botanists to commence the nomenclature with the inept starting- 

 point of 1753, for instance in the case of the circular quotation 

 arranged by the Berlin Committee, in voting at the Genoa Congress 

 and at the Rochester Meeting. This is an historical fact which to 

 prove 1 preferred full evidence in my Rev. gen. pi. III. How inept 

 it is to commence with 1753 and how advantageous it is to begin 

 with 1737 I have demonstrated in figures. The reason of the pro- 

 fitable starting-point of 1737 is that most of authors went back to 

 Linnaeus' Genera pi. of 1737 in regard to genera-names, but only 

 exceptionally made use of 1753 heretofore. In commencing with 

 1753 at least 93 genera and 6886 species would have to receive new 

 names. The list which I have published in that respect (Rev. gen. 

 pi. Ill p. ccclxxiii-vi) has in the mean time become considerably 

 larger. If to Mr. Jackson it seems paradoxical that less alterations 

 will be occasioned by 1737 than by 1753 what hardly will persuade 

 anyone (J. Bot. 1894 p. 28), then I dare say this is light and 

 wrong. On the other hand my opponent Dr. John Briquet wrote 

 on these ciphers, which I published on the consequences of changing 

 the starting-point, in Bulletin de l'herbier Boissier 1894 p. 54: 

 " Ces chiffres sont eloquents et nous pouvons assurer que les 

 derangements signales par Mr. Kuntze pour l'adoption de la date du 



