1893.] Botany. 823 
one thousand species, there are not to exceed seven such names, viz: 
michelianus, leflingiana, halleri, matthioli, Gmeleni, monelli, and 
sbeckii, (notice in passing, the capitalization, which is still maintained 
in the third edition). Here we have less than one per cent of names 
derived from personal names, which is in striking contrast with what 
we find in recent lists. 
In the list of New Species of North American Phanerogams and 
Pteridophytes, published in 1891, issued by the U. 8. National Herba- 
rium, twenty-three per cent of the specific names are derived from per- 
sonal names. In the similar list for 1892 we find a little more than 18 
per cent. of such names. Taking the two years together, the personal 
names are exactly twenty-one per cent. of the whole. Has not this 
thrusting forward of personal names gone entirely too far? It cer- 
tainly violates every principle of good taste. Botanists may soon be 
properly charged by other scientific men with showing an over-eager- 
ness to gain the petty notoriety which attaches to having one’s name 
borne by some plant. There should be a speedy reform in this prac- 
tice. 3 
It is a proper thing to construct a euphonious name from the name 
of an eminent botanist, and apply it to a new genus. There is some 
dignity in such a procedure; but there is a great deal of difference 
between the dedication of a genus to a great man, and the other prac- 
tice of assigning new species to every collector, — because the collectors 
like it ! 
CHARLES E. Bessey. 
Botany at the Madison Meetings.—The most notable gather- 
ing of American botanists in recent times took place in August of 
the present year in connection with the forty-second meeting of the 
Ameriean Association for the Advancement of Science, and the 
several affiliated societies. Especial efforts had been made to secure 
a large attendance, which was successful beyond the most sanguine 
expectations. But few of the more active of our botanists were 
absent, and these were unavoidably detained. 
This being the first year of the existence of a separate section (G) 
of botany, all members of the Association watched the experiment 
with much interest. But when the permanent secretary announced in 
the closing general session that the new section had received one-fifth 
of all the papers presented to the Association, all doubts as to the 
ability of the botanists to maintain a separate section disappeared. 
