1896.] Botany. 



mocyon diaphorus, Dinocyon, Hyamarctus arctoides. This last c 

 says the author, a true intermediate type between Hysenarctus of the 

 Miocene and the bears of the Pliocene, as Ursus arvernensis and 

 Ursus etruscm. M. Deperet adds that the discovery of this animal 

 fills a gap by revealing in a precise manner the ancestral relation of 

 the bear type. (Revue Scientif., 1895, p. 375.) 



BOTANY. 



The ViennaPropositions.— (Continued from page 1100, Vol. 

 XXIX.) — In a succeeding number of the same journal, Dr. Kuntze • 

 replies to the foregong article at some length. A considerable portion 

 of the reply is taken up with personalities. This is not without provoca- 

 tion, for Ascherson and Engler have grievously misrepresented him 

 in more than one place in the foregoing article, e. g., in the matter of 

 his proposed 100-year limitation, and his comparison of the changes 

 required by 1737 and 1753 — as one can readily see by glancing at 

 Revisio Generum 3\ Indeed, they substantially concede the injustice 

 of their accusation as to Knntze's statement with reference to the 

 changes required by 1753, a few paragraphs beyond, when they discuss 

 their proposed limitation of fifty years. The anonymous correspon- 

 dent of the Journal of Botany who was so pained at the supposed bit- 

 terness prevailing in America, is respectfully referred to the pages of 

 the Oesterreiche Botanische Zeitschrift for an example of the state of 

 feeling in other lands. 



The following extracts will give an idea of Dr. Kuntze's reply. 



Of the six propositions of Ascherson and Engler he says: *' Num- 

 bers 1-4 are not new; No. 5 is a prinei) ium inh ■:•■ jtans, and No. 6 a 

 supplement to No. 5. The new principle is a year limitation proposal 

 with retroactive force. I had previously proposed a limitation of Ion 

 years only for names sought to be revived in the future, which would 

 only affect old names which are mostly doubtful and undetermined, so 

 that by my proposed limitation, the doubtful cases would be disposed 

 of and greater stability of nomenclature brought about. By the prop- 

 osition of Messrs. Ascherson and Engler on the other hand, acquired 

 rights would be violated. The gentlemen, indeed, in their last 

 account no longer recognize this right, even as little as the ri^ht o 

 political legitimism. These gentlemen now reject also the law o 



1 Edited by Prof. C. E. Bessey, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 



