1894. ] Botany. 1039 
the state of nomenclature was far from quiet. Anyone who thinks that 
all was peaceable and serene till Dr. Kuntze and the Rochester Rules 
came down upon the fold, should be somewhat cautious in his references 
to Rip Van Winkle. When the most conservative of authors fails to 
reveal any system or principle consistently followed out in the several 
editions of his widest known work, and when contemporary works are 
in hopeless disagreement with themselves and with the Manual, it 
sounds somewhat strangely to be told that we are cutting “the solid 
ground from beneath our feet ” in laying down a set of rules and prin- 
ciples and agreeing to abide by them. When everybody made changes 
in nomenclature to suit his personal fancy, no one made any remon- 
strance, and we all followed the changes of the latest monographer 
without hesitation. It is only since this state ofgaffairs has become in- 
tolerable to the majority of American botanists, and they have resolved 
to make changes in nomenclature according to rule and principle, and 
not according to personal taste and caprice, that any complaint has 
been heard. 
The authors also protest against the representative character of the 
a of the Rochester and Madison meetings, and refer to them as 
* comparatively few botanists of various degrees of repute.” Whether 
this means that Boston still thinks herself the centre and focus of 
American learning in all branches, and that the authors regard all of 
those poor mortals who do not live in the shadow of Cambridge as in- 
truders, or whether it is only another instance of Rip Van Winkle, one 
_need not enquire. The remarks of the authors remind one of some editor- 
ial sayings in Zoe apropos of the Madison Congress and of the American 
Botanical Society. The botanists who dissent from the principles of 
the Rochester Rules certainly have not made much “ noise,” and the 
world at large is likely to be glad to know who they are. It will also 
be glad to know who those botanists are who possess “ that added grasp 
of affairs" which, we are told, in addition to mere knowledge of her- 
baria and of the literature of the subject, is necessary to qualify a bot- 
anist and make him competent to pass on questions of nomenclature. 
'The statements as to the personnel of the Rochester meeting fall little 
short of impertinence.—Roscok Pouxp. 
Botanical News.—The University of Chicago announces botani- 
eal lectures and laboratory work by Dr. John M. Coulter, who is styled 
the Professorial Lecturer on Botany. This would seem to indicate 
that eventually this great University may call Dr. Coulter to build up 
a department of botany commensurate with its importance. 
