412 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 
suggestions. We note that he still maintains 1787 as the starting- 
point for genera, and, while still thinking that on many grounds 
1753 is preferable, as being the base from which complete nomen- 
clature proceeds, we must admit that there is much to be said in 
favour of the earlier date. 
We regret, however, that Dr. Kuntze, in his “ commentaries ”’ 
on the Codex, should have given way to the extraordinarily offensive 
language which has done so much to mar the effect of his work, 
and, however illogically, to prejudice folk against his conclusions. 
We are at one with him in objecting to the arbitrary Berlin rules, 
especially that which establishes the fifty-years limit; but it cannot 
be necessary to call them “ swindle-rules,” or to speak of them as 
“perfidious and stupid.” The Americans ‘‘ who maintain the in- 
He 
o 
=> a 
ci 
na 
5 
oO 
mM 
et 
° 
ey 
=} 
a. 
4 
@O 
2 
ee 
S 
Q 
— 
ils 
mm 
= 
oO 
i=} 
o 
e 
a 
oO 
<j 
ae 
© 
sy 
Daal 
4 
o 
=f 
o> 
his strangely worded explanation is no justification: ‘‘In the com- 
bats that myself as the principal defender of the Paris Code had to 
fight since ten years against the widely spread corruption in botany, 
it 
that it consists of two principles, and that these are mutua 
tradictory. e have always maintained that the citation of 
Bentham & Hooker for numerous names which they never made is 
to the Indew Kewensis: we agree with Dr. Kuntze that it would be 
better to ignore them, as was done by Mr. Jackson with the Gando- 
Botany of the Faeries, based upon Danish Investigations. Part II. 
| Boy pp. 839-681. 2 plates, 100 figures in text. Copenhagen: 
Dojesen, 
na bH# Second part of this well-printed and well-illustrated work is 
e nly devoted to the Marine Algxw, which have been very carefully 
‘ated by F. Bérgesen; it contains also contributions by E. 
on 
