1896.] Botany. 57 



towards the eighty-one names the}' are bent on saving at all hazards, 

 savors quite as much of" legitimism" as anything in the nomenclature 

 controversy. Moreover the propositions are by no means as easy of 

 application as they might appear. The work of restoring prior names 

 has been going on pretty steadily for many years. Since 1891 it has 

 gone on quite rapidly. Are the names restored since the reform move- 

 ment began to stand, or are we to add a 7th proposition, something like 

 this: " No name recognized since 1891 is to be deemed withdrawn from 

 the operation of the 5th rule? " Then again it must be decided what 

 shall be considered " use" of a name. If a name appears in a work of 

 wide circulation there is a presumption that it has been used more or less. 

 How many other works must cite it to give it validity? And must 

 they cite it with approval, or will citation as a synonym or without 

 comment suffice? What sort of works shall be referred to to ascertain 

 whether a name has been used ? Are names used in catalogues and 

 printed lists used ? If a writer publish two books, say five years apart, 

 and cite his own names, if one of the books comes within the limit, have 

 the names he quoted from himself been used? Or must some other author 

 use them? The room for individual eccentricity in the application of 

 such a rule is too great to make the rule practicable. 



Besides what need is there of pretending to begin the nomenclature 

 of genera with 1753, when in fact it is begun with 1845 ? As Ascher- 

 son and Engler point out, their limitation substantially makes it im- 

 material whether the nominal starting point is 1753 or 1690. The 

 labored distinction between generic and specific nomenclature amounts 

 to very little. It is only partially true that the alteration of a generic 

 name entails the alteration of the name of every species in that genus. 

 Under the Kew Rule it might, perhaps, but otherwise it can scarcely 

 be said that a change of a generic name burdens the memory any more 

 than the change of a specific name. So long as the distinguishing por- 

 tion of the binominal remains unchanged, each new binominal does not 

 have to be learned over. 



In conclusion, without going into the merits of the controversy be- 

 tween Kuntze and Ascherson and Engler, I may say that Dr. Kuntze 

 never hides behind vague general statements, but supports his asser- 

 tions by citations and actual instances, so that they may be verified 

 Whether one accedes to Kuntze's conclusions or not, he may always 

 know upon what they are based. It would be much easier to determine 

 the value of the assertions made by his opponents if they were in the 

 habit of doing the same. It is easy to declaim against " disagreeable 

 alterations " and to make insinuations as to the motives of the reform- 



