1894.] Botany. 1037 
clusion by an attack upon the Rochester Rules, upon the principles 
upon whieh they suppose them to be based, and upon their framers. In 
the course of this they display a most wonderful ignorance of tke whole 
subject. 
In the first place they assume that there was, up to.the time the 
Rochester Rules were framed, a generally received nomenclature, and 
that the rules in question have overturned it—or have attempted to 
overturn it. To use their own language, they state that the Rochester 
Rules are intended to “ upset important results of nomenclature evolu- 
tion for a century and a half" The notion that there has been any 
"fixed or well-defined set of rules “ generally followed," or any “ gener- 
ally received " nomenclature, is mostly confined to those whose acqaint- 
ance with botanical literature begins and ends with Gray's Manual. 
To othersit has long been apparent that the only generally received. 
principle was, for the monographers, everyone for himself, and, for the 
rest of the world, follow the latest monographer. It was to put an end 
to this, for America at least, and to establish a nomenclature which 
might have some chance of becoming generally received, and which 
the next editions of our manuals could not overthrow at the caprice of 
their authors or editors, that the Rochester Rules were framed. 
I have said that the notion that there was a “ generally received " 
nomenclature, was confined mostly to the readers of Gray's Manual. 
But an examination of that work will speedily show that even the illus- 
trious author of the Manual was far from being sure of * where he was 
at " in nomenclature. 
In the preface to the last edition of the Manual, the editor states 
that the nomenclature there used conforms to the latest views of Dr. 
Gray. A comparison with the nomenclature of the preceding editions 
is, therefore, interesting. One of the first things that one notices is that 
many changes in the nomenclature of the fifth edition have been made 
to conform to the * Kew Rule." For instance: 
In the fifth edition we find: Chiogenes hispidula Torr., Ilysanthes 
gratioloides Benth., Xerophyllum asphodeloides Nutt., Bouteloua eurti- 
pendula Gray. These specific names represent in each case the oldest 
name: Vaccinium hispidulum L., Capraria gratioloides L., Helonias 
asphodeloides L., Chloris eurtipendula Michx. In the sixth edition 
these appear as Chiogenes serpyllifolia Salisb., Ilysanthes riparia Raf, 
Xerophyllum setifolium Michx., Bouteloua racemosa ., the names 
allowable under the Kew Rule. In the 1848 edition also, we find Boute- 
loua racemosa. That is, in 1848, Dr. Gray followed the Kew Rule in this 
particular instance, while disregarding it in the other cases mentioned. 
