1895.] Botany. 1095 
minates in the proposal of a compromise in that the author explains he 
will agree to 1737 or even 1753 as the starting point of priority in gen- 
era, provided the congress take up his other propositions en bloc. 
“Of the other more important observations published in Europe we 
mention also the memoir of Pfitzer, in which O. Kuntze’s nomenclature 
reform in the region of the orchids is critically examined ; O. Kuntze’s 
reply thereto, and a study by J. Briquet of the current nomenclature 
questions. 
“We would meet with little contradiction were we to state as the 
common mark of these discussions and publications the opinion that 
the endeavor of O. K. (sic) to replace a considerable portion of 
the generic names hitherto in use by others and to provide 30,000 spe- 
cies with his mark of authorship, has found little response with the 
great majority of thoughtful botanists, who hold the reform worse than 
the alleged evil. The Kuntzean attempts found enthusiastic approval 
only in certain circles of American systematists who had already in- 
scribed priority a outrance upon their banners. This tendency seems 
to have been in the majority at the Botanical Congress held at Madison 
in 1893, which, on account of the slender representation of Europe, 
renounced internationality, since this gathering concluded its transac- 
tions with a vote of thanks to O. Kuntze. 
“ But one would err very much if one thought that these gentlemen 
adopt the Kuntzean nomenclature unexamined. There the specifically 
American rule ‘once a synonym always a synonym’ (which is ener- 
getically opposed by O. Kuntze, but by Briquet interpolated into the 
Parisian lois de la nomenclature of 1867) has opened up a new source 
of rebaptisms, through which the number of needless renamings may 
soon be increased by several more thousands. So we see that the 
Kuntzean exertions, so far from bringing into the world the harmony 
striven for by him, have opened the gates wide to dissension and con- 
fusion. 
“We believe that before we approach the special questions, two 
closely interdependent fundamental errors must be met, which run 
through the argumentation of Kuntze and his American friends, The 
first is the notion that the principle of priority in questions of nomen- 
clature, on account of its intrinsic justice, should be established for the 
vindication of the spiritual property of the first discoverer or describer. 
In our opinion this consideration can in no wise hold the first rank in 
importance. Much more have we established the rule of priority only 
for this purpose, in order to have an objective standard, since as a rule 
it is much easier to determine which name was first published for a cer- 
