1098 The American Naturalist. [December, 
“ Already two years ago we called attention to the fact that the es- 
tablishment of 1753 did not suffice to restrain a large number of dis- 
agreeable rebaptisms of the best known and most numerous in species 
of genera. We then as a fourth thesis made a list of 80 (81) genera, 
the current names of which we wished to retain in spite of priority. 
This thesis was not adopted at Genoa. It had previously found oppo- 
sition among the Vienna botanists, and had united against itself the 
greater number of opponents in the Berlin inquiry. We believe that 
this opposition is directed against the arbitrary selection ; while the 
purpose, the protection of current names against alterations in majorem 
gloriam of an abstract principle, as inconvenient as unnecessary, has 
met with the approval of many of the dissenters. Who can wish sin- 
cerely that the abstruse word-buildings of an Adanson, the doctrinaire 
creations of a Neckar (who strove to obscure the conception of a genus 
as it had stood well-defined since Tournefort and Rivinus) and the 
hasty improvisations of a Rafinesque should replace names some of them 
current for more than one hundred years? We believe that in this 
ease the narrowing of the rule of priority for genera by introducing a 
year limitation will lead to our goal. One can seean inconsistency here, 
namely, that we do not propose this year limitation for specific names 
also. Yet we believe that here also, considerations of convenience 
must take precedence of abstract symmetry. For half a century men 
have labored zealously to determine the meaning of Linnaean species 
and of the species of the older authors by a careful study of their writ- 
ings and of their collections. These studies were only made possible 
by the most exact knowledge of the forms concerned; which one cer- 
tainly cannot assert of the efforts of Kuntze and his imitators which 
are for the most part based only on bibliographic researches. The 
result of all these labors which has already met with abundant general 
acceptation, would be lost, and long vanquished errors would resume 
sway if we were to introduce the year limitation (naturally with re- 
troactive force) for species also. The inconvenience of such a rectifi- 
cation of priority affects only as a rule a single name, sometimes two, 
more seldom a larger number. In the case of genera a similar ‘ cor- 
rection,’ which in no way concerns the scientific knowledge of the types 
in question, may often lead to the rebaptism of two hundred names. 
“ Moreover, theoretical reasons can be adduced why genera should 
not receive precisely the same treatment in nomenclature as species. 
Only a few would defend the absolute application of the principle of 
priority to the naming of families, orders and classes, Now, since in 
these cases, the considerations for priority fail, it is an entirely reason- 
