xii METASPERMAE OF THE MINNESOTA VALLEY. 
in general been reaffirmed and the modifications of the code are 
for the most part improvements. The action of the club cer- 
tainly marks the end of an unfortunate epoch in the history of 
American botany, and in the future it may be expected that 
many and evident benefits will be derived from the establish- 
ment of nomenclature upon some other than a personal basis. 
In accord with the action of the Botanical Club, I should have 
adopted in this work the 1753 date for genera as well as for 
species, had not most of the pages been in type when the action 
was taken. In accordance with the new rule the following 
changes in generic nomeuclature are suggested to persons us - 
ing this volume. 
Mariscus HALL. (1742)=Cladium P. BR. (1756). 
Cyperella CRAM. (1744) = Juncodes ADANS. (1763). 
Ramium Rumer. (1747)= Boehmeria Jaca. (1763). 
Stellularia LINN. (1748) = Stellaria LINN. (1753). 
Leuconymphaea Lupw. (1737) = Castalia SALtIssB. (1805). 
Nymphaea Lupw. (1737) = Nymphaea SAvisp, (1895). 
Capnorchis LUDW. (1737) = Bikukulla ADANS. (1763). 
Cracca LINN. (1747) = Colonila ADANS. (1763). 
Ricinocarpus BURM. (1737)= Acalypha LINN. {1753). 
Stellaria Lupw. (1737) = Callitriche Linn. (1758). 
Lappula WAL. (1745)= Lappula MoENcH. (1793). 
Leptostachya Mirren. (1748)= Phryma Linn. (1753). 
Pentagonia Sime. (1737)= Legouzia Dur. (1782). 
In the spelling of generic names the following are the prefer- 
able forms: Cypripedium, Pyrus, Pyrola, Pentstemon. Ia the 
matter of specific nomenclature the only change that need be 
made to follow the rules of the Botanical Club is the substitu- 
tion of the second oldest specific name in the duplicate 
binomials. Phragmites phragmites (LINN.) then becomes Phrag- 
mites vulgaris (LAM.). While the writer is not at all in sym- 
pathy with this rule of the Botanical Club, which makes an 
exception to the law of priority of which no exception should 
under any circumstances be allowed, nevertheless, in accord- 
ance with his belief that the action of so representative a body 
of botanists should have its due weight, he suggests that this 
change be made in the duplicate names of the list. 
It has been intimated that the position of the Characeae is 
not apparent in the general scheme of arrangement proposed 
in the introduction. It seems clear to the writer that this 
group is to be included among the Sporophyta-Archegoniatae. 
Whether the sporophytic plant is represented by the so-called 
pro-embryo! or is altogether suppressed, it would seem proper 
to include the Characeae, as has been done, among the Sporo- 
1, Vines: Journ sot. (1878). 
