1894.] Botany, 1081 
|. of the rule which, as he says, operate as a reductio ad absurdum. He 
makes a list of genera subject to the operation of the rule, taken only 
from Linne's Species of 1753, and including good sized genera only. 
From this list it appears that the American rule will require the use of 
Phaca instead of Astragalus—involving the change of 1300 names— 
of Sarothra for Hypericum, and of Amygdalus for Prunus. In his list, 
taken only from the 1753 edition of the Species plantarum, and not an 
exhaustive one, the American rule will alter the names of 20 genera 
and 4600 species. None of these are affected by the species-majority 
rule; Phaca, which appears on page 755 of the Species above Astraga- 
lus, has there but 2 or 3 species, while Astragalus has 33. Pirus 
on page 479 with 4 species, would have to yield to Sorbus on page 477 
with 2—necessitating a change of 55 species at the present time. Are 
American botanists prepared to follow this rule consistently ? 
Section III is entitled “ Compulsory Index for Plant-names.”’ Dr. 
Kuntze points out that the enormous increase in botanical literature 
(there are 7000 titles a year at the present time), has made it impossi- 
ble for any one to go over everything page by page as botanists could 
do formerly, and that what would have been gross carelessness at one 
time is almost a necessity now. He therefore proposes for discussion 
an article to the effect that articles, magazines and works, unless they 
have an index of names, including synonyms, to each volume, shall 
not be considered. It is certainly desirable that every work be well 
indexed. A book without an index, especially in these unsettled times 
when no one knows where anything will be placed to-morrow, is as good 
as sealed. But we may well doubt whether the corrective proposed is 
not too severe. Such penalties are not readily enforceable; and in the 
future, should a reaction setin against the rule, as usually happens 
with arbitrary rules of the sort, it would result in no little confusion 
by reason of the scope given for interference with established nomen- 
clature. 
- The next two sections deal with some rejections of names made by 
Pfitzer. One point is of interest, —Pfitzer in rejecting Kuntze's name 
Sirhookera takes occasion to make fun of it, a sort of objection to 
which, it must be confessed, too many of Dr. Kuntze’s names are 
liable. Incidentally he compares it to “ Amtsgerichtsrathschultzia.” 
Dr. Kuntze, as usual, comes back at him with a long list of such names 
coined by others, which must stand without doubt. And he points out 
in addition that Pfitzer retains a number of names with du, de, O', 
and Van prefixes, which are not dissimilar to Sir in Sirhookera. As 
far as the validity of such names goes, Dr. Kuntze is doubtless quite 
