1895.] Botany. 1099 
able distinction to hold that while with genera priority shall rule, 
nevertheless where reason would become unreason and benefit vexa- 
tion it be restrained by a year limitation, and yet in the case of species 
rule unrestrained. 
“ A different treatment of priority for genera recommends itself also 
with respect to the debated starting point of the same. We have 
already mentioned the important considerations of convenience which 
speak for 1753; nevertheless, there are numerous adherents of 1737 ; 
there have been and will be some for 1735, 1694, 1690, and, perhaps, 
for still other dates. Each of these starting points would naturally 
require a special generic nomenclature. ` 
- “Tt is also to be noticed that the conception of the genus is much 
less defined and, therefore, more inconstant than that of the species. 
What alterations have the ideas of genera in the Cryptogams, exclud- 
ing the ferns, in the Graminew, Orchidacee, Umbellifere, Composite, 
Crucifere, etc., undergone since Linné. For these groups, therefore, 
our proposition comes to the same result as the proposals which would 
have the priority of groups begin with thisand that monograph. Also 
the disagreeable double-namings in the Proteacee, in which by Kuntze’s 
own statement Knight and Salisbury, the authors he has raised upon 
his shield, do not seem at all free from the suspicion of plagiarism, 
would be put out of the world. 
“ Moreover, by the adoption of a period of limitation, the addition to 
the second Berlin thesis resolved upon at Genoa at Prantl’s suggestion 
will become superfluous. This, as it must be confessed, somewhat im- 
provised proposal directed its point against Adanson ; but it affected as 
well Haller, Scopoli (in part), and many other authors whose names are 
well known. 
“ Besides, even O. Kuntze has nothing to oppose to a limitation prin- 
ciple, provided only his restorations are excepted from it! 
“Tt is self evident that the endeavor to alter the current nomencla- 
ture of genera as little as possible, which has moved us to propose a . 
period of limitation, must not fall into opposition with itself. Such an 
opposition would occur if a name for a long time in common use 
should be rejected by reason of the rule, since, perhaps, after it had 
remained unobserved for a long time it might be restored once more. 
It is necessary, therefore, to fix a limitation for this and analogous 
eas: 
es. 
_ “ By fixing both periods at fifty years, the greatest number of the 
names applied in DeCandolle’s Prodromus will be allowed to stand, 
and most of the 6000 rebaptisms calculated by O. Kuntze as required 
by 1753 will fail. 
