X "ond Cs MEETS R5 Deag.11 eee cn CT 
1894.] Botany. 1035 
But Dr. Kuntze, while recognizing the necessity of some such rule, 
points out that if given retroactive force, the rule in question will 
involve us in no little difficulty. He givesa list of 200 generic names, 
all personal names, which must be rejected under the rule, and states 
that an exhaustive list would include from 500 to 606 generic names 
and involve about 7000 species. To this formidable number, should 
be added a large number of species which will be affected by the appli- 
cation of the rule to specific names. Not only is the rule open to this 
objection, but Dr. Kuntze makes the further point that, like all retro- 
spective legislation, it does great injustice to past workers who knew 
no such rule. He, therefore, objects strenuously to any retroactive 
application of it. But, on the other hand, he recognizes the necessity 
of making provision for cases like the one detailed above, and he has a 
suggestion which is well worth considering. In his Codex Emendatus- 
(Rev. Gen. III, 1, CCOXIIT), he proposes the following addition to ` 
Article 60 (I quote from his English text): “ Existing homonyms 
invalidate such homonyms as are in future competitory, or newly 
established, or renewed." That is, he proposes that the rule be applied 
to all future cases, and that a name valid now shall not in the future 
be superseded by any revived homonym. That would obviate the dif 
ficulty suggested in regard to Kneiffia above, and would certainly . 
accomplish all of what is intended by the American rule, without nec- 
essitating so many alterations. Dr. Kuntze points out in the present 
article the impossibility of any permanent nomenclature in large gen- 
era without some rule against the revival of homonyms. As an 
instance he mentions the genus Panicum. He says that in working 
over the species of this genus in his collections * when I found an 
older name for a species, there were generally also homonyms of other 
species forthcoming ; about which, however, one did not know whether 
they were valid or not.” The only solution of this is a rule which 
makes a synonym once a synonym for all time. Whether this rule 
should be made retroactive, or should be applied only to future cases, 
i. e. to prevent the renewal of existing homonyms and the creation of 
new ones, is a question which must be decided by those who, from their 
investigation of the matter, are competent to pass upon it. Dr. Kuntze’s 
suggestion seems to be a wise one and seems to cover all that is re- 
quired. 
'The remainder of the article is taken up with the nomenclature of 
the orchids, and a concluding section relating to a future congress. 
Dr. Kuntze has been subjected to a great deal of criticism, some of 
it unnecessarily severe, though his controversia! methods are not always 
