1038 The American Naturalist. [December, 
In 1868, he thought otherwise as to this one name and used the oldest 
specific name, while adhering to the Kew Rule in many cases (e. g., 
Lophantus anisatus Benth. = Hyssopus anisatus Nutt., 1818, — Stachys - 
foenicula Pursh, 1814). In 1889, his editor, representing “ his known 
and expressed, views,” changed about as to all of the names in the list 
just given, and altered a large number of names to conform to the Kew 
Rule, still, however, disregarding it in some cases. At the same time 
the editor stated that “reasonable regard ” had been had to the claims 
of priority! This last promise was fulfilled by changing about a dozen 
specific names and two or three generic names so as to use prior names. 
For instance, in the fifth edition we find Nelumbium Juss. In the last 
edition, Nelumbo Tourn. The name which the Rochester Rules would 
require is Nelumbo Adans. If the editor was willing to alter the 
name to which Dr. Gray had given currency for thirty years, and to go 
back to Tournefort for a name, others can scarcely be blamed for fol- 
lowing his example in similar cases, and going back at least to the 
time of Linné. A long list might be made showing the wholly arbi- 
trary and personal character of the alterations made in the nomencla- 
ture of the successive editions of the Manual. It is needless, however, 
since the facts are generally known. No reproach is implied in this so 
far as the illustrious author of the Manual is concerned, for he only did 
as all others were doing—namely, followed his personal inclination at 
the moment in each specific case, But such a condition was a reproach 
to botanical nomenclature, and could only result in a revolution. 
While American botany was in its infancy, it was natural that all 
should follow blindly in the wake of one great man. It is no less 
natural that the botanists of to-day should demand something more 
than a great name to justify uncertainty and vacillation in nomencla- 
ture. It is, in reality, the so-called conservatives who stand for disor- 
der and confusion in nomenclature. They are the “ Rip Van Winkles 
just awakened from a comfortable nap of years," and somewhat rudely 
awakened, too, thanks to Dr. Kuntze, and not over-clear in consequence 
as to who or where they are. 
It takes but a moment's glance at the successive editions of the 
Manual to show how utterly baseless is the notion that the framers of 
the Rochester Rules are seeking to overthrow “ well-established prinei- 
ples of property rights, custom, usage, and the well-established maxim, 
quieta non movere." The greater part of the rules adopted at Roches- 
ter were rules which botanists had, for many years, at least professed to 
recognize. 'The fact that the only representative body of American 
botanists was compelled to legislate on the subject shows of itself that 
1—————— o! 
