1030 The American Naturalist. [December, 
BOTANY: 
Dr. Kuntze's ** Nomenclatur-Studien.'' *—Dr. Kuntze's latest 
contribution to the nomenclature problem is in the form of a reply to 
certain criticisms of Pfitzer upon his alterations of names in the 
Orchidaceae.  Pfitzer's criticisms are to be found in Engler's Jahr- 
buecher XIX, 1-28. Kuntze answers him in the Bulletin of the Bois- 
sier Herbarium, II, No. 7, issued in July, 1894, in an article entitled 
Nomenelatur-Studien. While this article was provoked by the strict- 
-ures of Pfitzer and deals principally with the nomenclature of the 
orchids, it is of especial interest to American botanists on account of 
-some criticisms of two rules adopted in this country. 
The first section of the article deals with names applied by Thouars 
to the orchids, which Pfitzer would reject. Dr. Kuntze discusses the 
matter thoroughly, although he had already gone over the ground in 
.1891 (Rev. Gen., II, 645-650), and certainly makes a convincing 
argument. In the course of his reply to Pfitzer on this point, he is led 
to restate his position on the question of *species-majority vs. place- 
priority,” and to criticize the rule adopted by American botanists. 
This is done in the second section. 
Section II, entitled “ priority in place at all events and Article 55,” 
is one of considerable importance. Dr. Kuntze in his Codex Emenda- 
tus (Rev. Gen., III, 1, CCCCV) proposes the following additions to 
article 55 of the Paris Code (I quote from his English text) : 
“ A deviation from strict priority is necessary for genera published 
on the same day and united afterwards: 
(iy they got no species at their first publication, the genus 
name to diss in 1753 or afterwards was put the first specific name is 
legitim 
(2) “ T they got also their first species on the same day, the genus 
name having received most species on that day must be preferred”. . 
Instead of this criterion of * species-majority," American botanists 
have taken priority of place in the book in which both names were pub- 
lished. This criterion is undoubtedly simple, easy of application, and 
one obviating all discussions to which the application of the other 
might give rise. But Dr. Kuntze proceeds to make some applications 
'Edited by Prof. C, E. Bessey, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 
Read before the Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska, Sept. 22, 
1894, 
