vo ae a ae” a Kane Sa 
é . a 
thy 
278 Scientific Intelligence. 
* IV. BOTANY. 
rules of nomenclature drawn up at the instance of the association by 
Mr. Strickland and others, with power to.reprint these rules, and to cor- ; 
respond with foreign naturalists and others on the best means of insuring 
their general adoption.” “ Accordingly the rules, as originally circulated, 
are now reprinted [i. e. in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for 
Oct. 1863, p. 260 et seq. |, and zoologists are requested to examine them 
carefully, and to communicate any suggestions for alteration or Improve- 
ment, on or before the first of June, 1864, to Sir William Jardine, Bart, 
Jardine Hall, by Lockerby, N. B.” 
As most of the propositions are from their nature equally applicable to 
botany, and as the new committee comprises the names of four botarists, 
extremely well selected, it is obvious that the improvement of nomencla- 
We feel free, therefore, to make any suggestions that may occur to us 
from the botanical point of view : 
First, we would reeommend that “the admirable code proposed in a 
Philosophica Botanica of Linnzus,”—to which, “if zoologists had pa 
the lapse of time have become inoperative, or were from the first over 
nice: ex gr, 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, etc., most of which are | 
recommendations rathef than laws. The British Association’s Commit 
tee has pruperly divided its code into two parts, 1. Rules for re 
ing the no- 
the present nomenclature: 2. Recommendations for improving 
menclature in future. The laws all resolve themselves into, or are conse 
quences of the fundamental law of priority, “the only effectual and just 
one.” 
m . 
nomial nomenclature, having originated with Linnaeus, the law of pres 
in respect of that nomenclature, is not to extend to the writings of am fal 
dent authors,” is perhaps somewhat too broadly stated. The essen 
thing done by Linnzeus in the establishment of the binomia 
ture was, that he added the specific name to the generic. 
ormed genera and generic names; but he did not pretend t 
ventor or establisher of either, at least in Botany. This merit he ae 
_ to Tournefort, in words which we have already cited in this Journal \" 
'Y, p. 134); and he respected accordingly the genera of Tourn 
reformer, While, therefore, it is quite out o question 1 
1 nomencla- 
Iso re- 
to be the in- ue 
» taking only the liberties which fairly pertained Pos him as if 
- 
-. 
