The America)/ Naturalist. 



RECENT LITERATURE. 



Kuntze's Revisio Generum. II.— (Continued from the February 

 number, p. 147.) — Section 10 discusses the difficulties arising from 

 the almost simultaneous appearance of new publications, publications 

 of uncertain date, incompleteness of libraries, etc. 



Section 11 is entitled " Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum 

 and their neglect of the literature before Robert Brown." Kuntze is 

 not the only one who has criticised Bentham for this, (G. J. Britten's 

 Journal of Botany 1888, p. 261,) but Kuntze is especially severe upon 

 him, not only for this, but for his method of changing spent -nan • -. 

 He pays a high tribute to Bentham for his work in limiting and 

 defining genera, but says (in English, § 16) : "Surely Bentham was a 

 genius of botanists, therefore I admire him, but he was a great .-inner in 

 nomenclature, who worked stupendously, but did not lose time in 

 looking out for the rights of older authors and priority of their given 

 names. He was alittle ignorant of the ant hors of the past century ; he 



took for instance Patrick Browne for ante-Linnean, although this 



botanist had adopted (1756) the Linnean system of 1735 with little 



alteration In the Genera Plantarum he has forgotten several 



thousands of generic names of Linnean and post Linnean time. He 

 opposed the new international rule so as not to be obliged to correct 

 himself innumerable times." Elsewhere he says, speaking of Bentham 

 and Hooker : " Their nomenclature is to be censured not only because 

 it is very incomplete as pointed out, but also because it builds wider 

 upon the corrupt nomenclature of Robert Brown. The many incon- 

 sistencies and caprices in the choice of names in B.H.g.p. is to be 

 deplored." 



The truth of Kuntze's remarks will not be disputed. The English, 

 as he says, admit it, but reply with the characteristic answer, "in our 

 country we like to do so." So too, they like to measure with yards, 

 feet and inches. Science is international or rather supernational, and 

 it is not to be kept back by the prejudices of any nation. We may expect 

 English botanists to cling to the methods of the " raubritter " period 

 for a long time to come. But the world is not to be ruled by the 

 heir3 of Robert Brown. 



The next section, 12, deals with the " beqitemlichkeit-motiv as a 

 hindrance to the restoration of rightful name-." This "brqaemii<-hkt>'d- 



