1893.] Botany. 1011 
all its details than probably any man living. Consequently anyone 
attempting to eriticize him does it at the peril of having a multitude 
of facts cited to him of which he had been but dimly conscious or of 
which he had never dreamed. Though one may not be able to agree 
with Dr. Kuntze as to many points, he must admit that a perusal of 
his commentary shows him fully able to cope with any of his adversa- 
ries and that he rarely comes out * second best." It should be added 
that this method of setting out the arguments of his opponents in full 
is in happy contrast with the far too common practice of criticizing 
single extraets without giving the context to show what they mean. 
The Berlin propositions, particularly the notorious proposition 4, 
are well criticized in three languages, so that no one can mistake Dr. 
Kuntze's meaning. Dr. Kuntze in this and in the polyglot circulars 
sent to the members of the Madison Congress has shown that he is in 
earnest, and botanists owe him no little gratitude for the pains he is 
taking to secure a right termination to the movement. 
In this connection his remarks on the Genoa Congress are note- 
worthy. He is perhaps a little too severe in his objections to the use 
of the Italian language by the Congress. It may be that to ask botan- 
ists to add Italian to the rather heavy list of languages they must know 
istoo much. But the Italian botanists have certainly merited the 
recognition, and law or no law, if they keep on at their present gait, 
we shall be obliged to know someihing of their language. Besides we 
do not all have to wield foreign languages with the ease with which 
Dr. Kuntze handles them to be able to understand sufficiently the most 
of what a botanist has to say. But Dr. Kuntze's criticism on the 
international character of the Congress is well taken. It is folly for 
any Congress which is not international in composition to attempt 
international legislation. No laws will be observed till they are 
enacted by an assembly whose jurisdiction is beyond question and 
whose composition commands the respect of all countries. 
The remaining sections discuss the orthographic license, supplemen- 
tary resolutions to the Paris Code, “ 1753, die Nomenclatur der Unbe- 
wussten,” and “1737, die Neue Compromiss in spe.” These last two 
sections are devoted to the important question whether 1737 or 
1753 shall be the starting point of nomenclature. 1735 which he first 
proposed, and which has a certain logical foundation in its favor, he 
now gives up for 1737 asa compromise. Thisis wise. The 1737 
names where they differ from the names of 1735 are a great improve- 
ment on them. He gives a list of the changes necessitated in the 
names given in parts I and II by his new starting point. This list is a 
