1012 The American Naturalist. [November, 
considerable one, and as the 1737 names brought in are quite often 
those in common use lately, it gives new strength to. his position by 
practically removing one of the commonest objections made to it. It 
has been noted by several that the changes demanded by the 1735 
starting point were not so frightfully numerous as they have been 
represented. The changes in so-called current names (for in the last 
ten years at least we have had no really stable current names) required 
by the 1737 starting point are comparatively few, and in this his com- 
promise has an advantage. American botanists have preferred 1753, 
and that date has served as the basis for the nomenclature of several 
American publications, and gained considerable foothold. I shall not 
at this time discuss the relative advantages of the two dates, but shall 
merely observe his arguments. To change from 1753 to 1737 would 
require no very great number of alterations, and one may well be sat- 
isfied with either date, provided absolute fixity is attained. Of the 
points he makes against the 1753 starting point the strongest one is 
this. He charges that in the Species Plantarum of 1753 there are a 
number of genera vitiosa which represent an undetermined number of 
modern genera, while the genera of 1737 to 1748 are mostly clear. 
There are even, he says, monotypic genera in 1753 which under one 
species comprehend several modern genera. This is a charge of con- 
siderable weight and he cites several examples in support of it. The 
other objection, that in starting with 1753 we become entangled in the 
question of determination of Linnzan species, is also not without 
weight. Our starting point ought to be free from any entanglements 
which will allow botanists in time to come to overhaul accepted names 
under the guise of enforcing the law and question their validity. 
In ealling the nomenclature of 1753 the nomenclature of the ill- 
informed, or as he translates it “badly instructed,” botanists, he is 
perhaps right in the sense in which he means it. It was, he says, taken 
up by persons who were not fully acquainted with the circumstances. 
But few besides Dr. Kuntze were fully acquainted with the circumstan- 
ces till the appearance of his book made it in some degree possible 
without years of special study. 
The succeeding section is a discussion of signs for growth, etc. with a 
suggested international code. The most remarkable thing about this 
code is its elaborateness. It provides signs for nearly every conceiva- 
ble form of growth, and, if it gets into use, it will necessitate constant 
reference to the key, as it would be no small task to memorize it. 
While such signs are very convenient, it may be doubted whether 
there is any advantage in so elaborate a system. 
