668 The American Naturalist. [July, 
name in point of stability, or in certainty as to its origin. The insta- 
bility of specific names is greatly exaggerated by the protestants, and 
it was to cure the evil so much dreaded by them that Rule III of the 
Rochester Rules was formulated. At the end of the discussion, how- 
ever, the whole case is surrendered by the protestants in requiring 
botanists in the present and future “to preserve scrupulously the 
specific name without alteration in transferring species from one 
genus to another.” 
The fourth rule proposed, which insists upon a sharp line of demark- 
ation between specific and varietal names is not unreasonable to those 
who hold that species differ radically from varieties. There are still 
some people who believe in the fixity and original independence of 
species, and hence of varieties, also, and for whom the facts of develop- 
ment and evolution have no significance. For such, the rule is a logi- 
cal necessity. The final pronouncement (5) that the principle “ once 
a synonym always a synonym” is recommended as “an excellent 
working rule for present and future use,” is stultified by the adden- 
dum to the effect that it “ may not be made retroactive.” The framers 
of these rules appear to have a horror of anything which is retroactive, 
as if for a rule or law to be retroactive were very bad or very danger- 
ous. The word is held up as a sort of bug-a-boo to frighten us. What 
do they mean by recommending the present use of the rule “ once a 
synonym always a synonym,” but forbidding its retroactive use. What 
is there so sacred in the work of the years preceding the appearance of 
this protest that it should be spared the application of a principle 
which the protestants declare to be “an excellent working rule?” 
It is necessary to notice but one more of the many curious things in 
this remarkable document, viz.: the statement that “ these rules are 
designed to apply only to phenogams [sic] and vascular cryptogams.” 
What will the algologists do, and the fungologists, and bryologists? 
Are they to be allowed to wander around in darkness and disorder, 
when, by a stroke of the pen, their outlying provinces of the botanical 
kingdom might have had the benefits claimed by the protestants for their 
rules. If these rules are good, there is no reason for restricting their 
application so as to exclude any department of descriptive botany. 
CHARLES E. BESSEY. 
The Missouri Botanical Garden.—The attention of botanists 
is called to the facilities afforded for research at the Missouri Botanical 
Garden at St. Louis. In establishing and endowing the Garden, its 
founder, Henry Shaw, desired not only to afford the general public 
