Commission internationale 
de nomenclature botanique. 
entaire 51 pages LIII—LIV, etc., que le 
e 
de la commission internationale 
plebiscite; ni les noms des invités 
élection, ni les nom des électeurs, ni la 
de l'élection furent publiés. La 
| de ces publications est une con- 
> ces irregularités, qui font incom- 
igrés à Vienn i 
mem! a commission inter- 
ont refusé et combien en existent 
? 
circulaires de ce bureau parisien 
révolutionnaires et en 
de dates, ainsi des documents 
~ 
pp ments publié par Alph. de 
» 
d'excuses, que la con- 
Zweiter Anhang 
x motions motivées pour la 
i et par d'autres au Code | C 
of botanic nomen- 
| Commission 
| clature. 
| 
| I proved in the Codex brevis maturus, com- 
mentary 51 page LIII—LIV, &c. that the Con- 
gress of botanists of 1905 in Vienna could not 
| become competent, if it is not reformed as 
soon as possible. I shall only show the fol- 
lowing most important reasons for it: 
| garden in Geneva, wrote me December 6th of 
1900 regarding the preparations of the Con- 
gress and the elections: 
«La consultation se fera avec la plus grande publicité et toutes les 
, 
duites et communiquées avec la plus grande 
n 
e 
u 
= 
Fr 
m 
= 
, 
É | not publish excuses as to the irregular election 
of the international commission by unknown 
voters of plebeian voting ; neither the names 
of the men invited for the election, nor the 
names of the electors, nor the statistics of the 
cret doings ; 
the Paris bureau is not published. Hov "a 
members of the international commission di 
3 
E 
at a 
2) The circular letters of that Paris bureau 
were insufficient and revolutionary, also partly — 
without date and as such invalid documents. E. 
the con- 
sideration of such former publications of legi 
ew. "Hr 
opinion in his tienne letter that 
Two motions with reasons to be * 
| moved at the second international 
refuse and how many are there still existing — 
t all? 2 
3) The supplements published by Alph. de 
: "g ysel : rs to the Paris — 
