80 J. H. MAIDEN. 
The document before usis based upon the De Candollean 
‘‘lois’’? of 1867, and pages 5—16 are taken up with a 
synoptical table or “‘Concordance des Lois de la Nomen- 
clature botanique de 1867 et des Regles et Recommanda- 
tions de 1905.”’ 
Then follow the “International Rules’’ in three languages, 
French, English, and German. This is succeeded by a 
table of Nomina Conservanda of the greatest interest to 
Australians and which must be respected by every Austra- 
lian botanist. J extract the Australian genera as an 
appendix. Lastly we have a useful “Index analytique.”’ 
Examination of these International Rules shows that the 
more conservative or moderate botanists have exercised 
the greatest influence. Personally, whatever the decisions 
might be, I have always been prepared to respect them. I 
have discussed the matter with various infiuential Kuropean 
and American botanists who have been in Sydney during 
the last three years and who intended to go to Vienna, 
and who indeed went, and have written to various EKuro- 
pean and American botanists in the same strain that, while 
it was very possible that the great distance would prevent 
Australian botanists from attending the Congress at 
Vienna, I believed that they would be loyal to its decisions. 
I believe that to be the case, and my object in reading the 
present paper is to point out some of the decisions which 
Specially affect us or are of more or less local interest to 
us and to enjoin my Australian brethren to obtain copies 
of the International rules and make them their daily guide 
of botanical practice. 
I have no intention of going over the whole of the rules. 
Article 2 enunciates “ principles, rules and recommenda- 
tions.”’ Iam obliged to extract the article as otherwise 
I cannot be understood. 
