graphs and seldom correct them— in this cimrfu* riiin«us a careful 

 study of the older sources is let slip by all." 



In the introduction to his revision he ~u j>j >I< nient.- this statement by 

 a detailed account of the causes of the present state of nomenclature ; 

 and the large number of examples which he give- certainly show a 

 much more chaotic condition than one would suppose, even in spite of 

 the discussions going on in ih- i :i_.i, i < - and ; . i fai lil ai nana- ; 

 be met with in every new catalogue. " Above all," he says, " my 

 revision shows that the present condition of botanical nomenclature is 

 still very unhealthy. The great Linne indeed reformed Botany, but 

 unfortunately he introduced a taint at the same time which has trans- 

 mitted itself with botanists namely unfairness towards co- 



become bankrupt. The botanical * on^n-s in Pari- in 1 *<>7 tfrst made 

 way for the cure. I hope through this w..rk to accelerate it." 



He also discusses in the preface the "Benthamain-rule" that a 

 s only an incident to the genus name and the inter- 



, and in the main justly, and drives - -me- interesting example.- of 

 7 he multiplies species-names on changing a species from one 

 ) another. He shows that this was a general practice of the 

 rs of Linnaeus and of botan b jr, and observes 



s not to be expected that I mdon this old 



