1892.] Recent Literature. 227 



motiv" is the excuse constantly put forward by those who do not like 

 to take all the consequences of the rule of priority. Hut like other 

 vague principles its operation is somewhat < -a; rn \<>\i>. and in practice 

 is only applied where it suits the convenience of those who follow it. 

 Bentham and Hook* r, says Kunt/c. follow it very inconsistently. In 



it in the case of their countryman Lindlcy. He gives some exa.nples 



which worked with Bentham on Wallich's catalogue 1*2!»-31." He 

 then speak- of the way in which author- in one country neglect foreign 

 authors, and charges that the English ami French *' on the average 

 overlook with great consistency everything- written in the (ierman 

 language." Each nation too, " pushes to the front w/lnis ro/e/'." its 

 own authors," and he adds "we Germans are not entirely without Un- 

 patriotic weakness." In these remarks he has struck the key note of 

 the " beqxtemlieJikeit" excuse. As he says, it is " directly opposed to 

 the principle of order. If it is not given up, we shall revert to the 

 condition before Linn6, when each school or each land had a different 

 nomenclature." 



In section 13 he considers what should be the starting point f r 

 genus-names. He claims that there is no generally recognised fixed 

 starting point. In general, Linne's last names are used together with 

 those names given by his contemporaries which he adopted or did not 

 rebaptize. But in some instances authors have gone back of his last 

 names. Bentham and Hooker, he says, used the 1767 edition of 

 Linne's Systevia, not because they attached special value to that 

 edition, but because they had no earlier one. Kuntze takes the editio 

 princeps of Linne's Systema Natural (1735) as the starting point for 

 genera, and explains his reasons at some length. In the fint place 

 he objects strongly to the citation of Tournefort for genera adopted 

 from him by Linn"e. If Tournefort is cited, he says, why not Kivinu- .' 

 And why not cite the authors between Tournefort and Linne whose 

 names the latter adopted? It is, he says, making too great a leap to 

 start with Tournefort, and then pass over all intermediate authors and 

 start again with Linne. Some fixed point must be had and every- 

 thing beyond rigidly excluded, or there will be no fixity in nomencla- 

 ture. The citation of Tournefort arises, he says, from pietism and a 

 little French patriotism. "Tournefort was shoved forward by De 



Candolle, but De Candolle and his followers ought first to have 



troubled themselves about the generally neglected contemporaries ot 

 16 



