COMMENTAEY. 



1. The object of Axticle 1 is to egtablisk the principle of 

 universality for botanical nomenclature. Article 6 is a con- 

 sequence of it. 



2. The rules laid down by Linn^us were quite arbitrary, 

 and he did not even seek to justify them. (See Phil. Bot. 

 §§ 225, 226, 229, 230, 231.) His antagonist, Heister, fol- 

 lowed the same course. Nowadays no one likes to submit 

 to the will even of a man of genius, while many might feel in- 

 clined to side with the majority. Article 2 intimates, among 

 other things, that a congress of scientific men may throw 

 light upon a question, or may express an opinion by vote, 

 but cannot impose a rule or prohibit a method. 



3. In nomenclature, as in all other branches of science, it 

 is impossible to accept that which impHes anything equivocal 

 or false. All rules, or at least all necessary rules, may be 

 considered a development of this fundamental principle. 

 If a doubt arises on a question of nomenclature, the way to 

 clear it is generally to ask oneself whether, by taking one 

 course rather than another, there might result from it am- 

 biguity, false assertions, immediate or possible error. The 

 answer indicates what is or is not allowed. 



4. It is impossible to deny a certain right of custom ; the 

 maintenance of well-known names, of forms ia frequent use, 

 often gives clearness or precision, and does away with the 

 necessity of new ones. It would not, however, be right to 



