18M-] Recent 



Literature. 





m 



yoke of Robert Brown and his to 



ccenora. But 



if authors 



h , ick to 



Linne's lust names at all. there 









which they are not to go, and 



at whirl) eilati 



on should 



\ u ' 'n,',- 



adoption of the 1735 edition do( 







iiuniher ..f 



changes as one would suppose— 



indeed the nun 



il>cr i'rela 



tiwlv verv 



small, and it certainly has the 



advantage of 



furni>hin- 



• a certain. 



unmistakable and eminently logi 



cal foundation 





•lature 



Section 14 is devoted to a mini 



her of proposer 



1 addition* 



and aiuend- 



ments to the international rules, 



which make 





Mrict and 



definite, and modify some of th< 



m in acoordiu 



ice with 1) 



is views as 



explained in the preceding secti 



ons. They an 



; of such 



lon-th, that 



but a few can be noticed here. 









He proposes to amend article 51 by striking out the woi 



-ds « higher 



or " and adding at the end of the 



article "on ele 



vationof i- 



i group, the 



author who founded the group should be cited 



, either al 



one with a 



£ mark preceding, or with the 



other author 



behind in 



the second 



position." The last is of course 



to avoid what 



he calls " 



-eduction." 



His object in making the change 



is to get a cita 



tion that w 



ill indicate 



clearly the origin of the name, so 



that there can 



be no dou 



bt as to its 



validity against intermediate n: 



ames. But he 



makes a 



distinction 



between the elevation and the ret 



luctionofagro 



up, claimi 



ngthat his 



rule should apply to the former i 



>nly, and that 



in the latter case the 



correction only should be cited, i 



ind he argues 



this at so 



me length. 



His reason is that to extend the i 



•ule to both cases would 



encourage 



undue haste ami radicalism. So- 



on the other 



hand, it m 



ay be said 



which sometimes does not demand much deiilx ration. His idea .-eems 

 to be that a writer should feel that he describes species under new 

 genera at his peril. It is somewhat inconsistent with his principles 

 to allow any possibility of confusion for the purpose of chastizing 



-: and it cannot be denie 

 must be guarded against as much in 



the book he is con-- ;~divi-ion. 



In this instance he seems to have carried his zeal too far. 



In article 60 he proposes to strike out paragraphs 3 and 4, which he 

 adds to article lis, and to substitute 1 1 paragraphs giving forms to be 

 rejected. Of these 10 is " double genus-names," with three exceptions 

 however, of which (b) is " personal names put together which result in 

 a flowing word." This is not exactly consistent. How much worse 

 are double genus-names than •' Mowing words" (!) like " Sirhookera," 

 "Hallowmullera", etc? 



