858 The American Naturalist. [October, 
Cuphea,” by Mrs. Wolcott; “On the genus Ditrichium in North 
America, with one western species, and corrections for two eastern 
species,” by Mrs. Britton ; “ Notes on terminology,’ by Thos. Holm; 
“ Notes on some fungi common during the season of 1892, at Ames, Ia.,” 
by L. H. Pammel ; “ Notes on some Kansas weeds,” by A. S. Hitch- 
cock; “Notes on the flora of Block Island,’ by W. W. Bailey; 
“Notes on the distribution of a few plants,” by L. H. Pammel also 
“Pheenological notes for 1892,” by Prof. Pammel. This is a total of 
forty-one papers for the club. These with the thirty-eight named ason 
the programme of Section F give a grand total of seventy-nine 
papers presented at Rochester by the botanists. Many others not 
here mentioned were given before the Microscopical Society and the 
Society for the Promotion of Agricultural Science, so that it is safe to 
state that the number of botanical titles at the several conventions 
held at Rochester during ten days was in the neighborhood of, if it 
did not exceed, one hundred. 
It was evidently the botanist’s meeting, and with a new section estab- 
lished for them in the A. A. A. S., the workers upon plants, in all the 
various departments, may well feel encouraged to go forward to 
greater triumphs in the near future—Byron D. HALSTED. 
Citation of Authors of Genera and Species.'—In order to 
obtain stability of nomenclature it is necessary to provide that the 
name of a plant, the specific name, cannot be changed through caprice 
or whim. Nor can it be changed through ignorance, providing the 
mistake through which the name was made has been discovered. The 
refusal to correct mistakes and the disinclination to do thorough bibli- 
ographical work before publishing a new specific name is the cause of 
most confusion in botanical nomenclature. Hence has arisen the so- 
called international law or law of priority which provides that the 
earliest published specific name of any plant must stand, providing 
that the name is not antedated by some other similar name applied to 
a plant belonging in the same genus. Many botanists do not admit 
the validity of this principle except in the case of species which they 
may have themselves named and published. With reference to others 
they are accustomed to insist that “customs,” “long established habit” 
and a conservative condition must be maintained. This is to save the 
difficulty of having to revise their own systems of nomenclature, and 
serves in many cases to cover inaccuracies or hastiness. With this 
From “ The Metaspermz of the Minnesota Valley,” in Report of the Geological 
and Natural History Survey of Minnesota (1892). 
