x 
1895.] Botany. 1097 
of 1883 makes the observation that the terms Phanerogamae and Cryp- 
togamae are to date from 1735, the Linnaean genera from 1737, and 
the species from 1753. He means this in the purely historical biblio- 
graphical sense. In this state of affairs Kuntze now maintains that he 
has acted in accordance with the laws because he has transferred the 
species names of 1753 to the generic names of 1737-1752 (we will 
leave undiscussed the shoving back to 1735 which was so fruitful in 
new names), and accuses us of revolutionary procedure because we will 
not allow priority of generic names to be put back of 1753. We can 
here call upon the most competent testimony that can be adduced upon 
this question, that of the late A. deCandolle, who prepared the laws, 
directed the conference over them, and edited the conclusions for the 
press. If this father of the Paris rules of 1867 has rejected the Kuntzean 
interpretation, then the question is certainly put at rest. Not less does 
the Kuntzean position that the rules which were there established con- 
cerning the division of genera and like matters, be given retroactive 
force in interpretation, so that now, for example, the species of Helian- 
themum, because they form the majority of the Linnaean genus Cistus 
must bear that name, and the Miller-Gartnerian species of Cistus be re- 
baptized, conflict, if not with the letter of the Paris resolves, at least 
with the uninterrupted interpretation of them for nearly a quarter of a 
century. Here also we hold it self evident that historical development 
is to be respected—quieta non movere. But these rules of 1867 are to 
hold when a new monographer reforms the present generic boundaries. 
So all thoughtful systematists have held from 1867 to 1891, and so will 
they do also in the future. 
“With good foresight, then, did we fix upon the year 1753 as the 
starting point for genera also in the first Berlin thesis. The American 
resolution does the same, and both propositions are in full accord with the- 
present practice. As the Genoese congress assented to this decision by- 
a large majority, it is scarcely intelligible how Kuntze sees in this. 
proposition a rash action into which one of the undersigned ‘ irritated ’ 
the congress. Briquet lately opposes these conclusions in a pitiable- 
way in order to argue for 1737. He calls to his aid the Kuntzean, 
argument that 1753 will necessitate the rebaptism of about 6000 spe-. 
cies, while by beginning with 1737 a much smaller number would be- 
required. Naturaily alterations of the Kuntzean nomenclature are 
meant. But a comparison can only be made with the nomenclature 
current before the appearance of the Revisio, and thus it appears that 
1737 makes a greater number of alterations necessary than standing 
upon the starting point hitherto commonly adopted, at least de facto.. 
75 
