14 METASPERMAE OF THE MINNESOTA VALLEY. 
cases, considered final, while in the Apetalae, so-called, and the 
monocotyledons the works of Torrey (16), De Candolle (17), 
Richter (18) and many others have been of prime assistance. 
In addition to these, a number of other works have been useful, 
especially in the lower families, where, for an evident reason, ° 
the least compilatory labor has been expended by previous 
workers. In particular cases help has been extended by 
specialists, e. g., by Morong in Potamogetonaceae, Lamson— 
Scribner in Gramineae, Britton in Cruciferae, Coulter in Umbelli- 
ferae, ete. This is all gratefully acknowledged. 
The synonymy is in general chronologically arranged and 
the specific name chosen is in every case so far as the writer 
knows, the one sanctioned by priority regardless of variance 
with ‘‘custom” or ‘‘authority.” As*explained above this is at 
once the most modern and, it would appear, the most logically 
correct rule to follow. One point which should merit atten- 
tion, perhaps, is the uniformity with which capital letters are 
suppressed from specific names, even in the synonymy. It is 
probable that the writer is fairly open to criticism for sup- 
pressing such capitals in a synonym, while he might not merit 
it for the suppression in the particular name he himself is in- 
clined to sanction. Nevertheless no capitals will be found in 
specific names whether they are derived from proper nouns or 
not. This is a practice in line with custom, as may be dis- 
covered by referring to the older American manuals, and is 
conducive to regularity and system. The particular practices 
of different authors in regard to this trivial point may be 
learned by reference to their pages. Again, ancient spelling 
has generally been retained in the specific names, even if at 
variance with a more recent rule. Thus the law of priority is 
guarded most safely, and personal preferences, are, so far as 
possible, excluded. 
It must be noted, however, that the law of priority in plant 
nomenclature does not contemplate, as generally interpreted, 
any pre Linnaean work as of importance. An arbitrary start- 
ing point must be determined for botanical names just as an 
arbitrary point of latitude or longitude is determined. As there 
is no natural longitude to be discovered, so there is no natural 
demarcation-line between the older methods of nomenclature 
and the newer. Hence confusion arises: some writers cite 
(16). Torrey: Fl. NV. Y. (1843); Torrey and be Fl. N. Am, (1838-41). 
(17), De Candolle: Prodromus, (1824 Jy 
(18). Richter: Plantae Europeae, Pt. I, (1891). 
