17 
the nomenclature of the spermatophytes are: (i) The earliest bino- 
mial for a given species under its proper genus is in reality its first 
usable name. (2) As soon as such a designation has been created, 
showing at once the specific status and the correct generic affinity of 
the plant in question, there seems no adequate reason for making 
other binomial combinations for the same plant. Indeed, such later 
combinations, even if framed with the purpose of reinstating a neg- 
lected specific name, are of no practical importance and do far more 
to encumber than to clarify nomenclature. (3) The legalization of 
the first generically correct binomial has the great advantage that it 
foîcnds 7 iomenclature prmiarily upon the works of authors who have 
rightly understood the affinities of the plants with which they have beefi 
dealing. It at once cuts out from competition a vast quantity of 
species which have been ill-defined and wrongly placed. It thus acts 
as a useful check upon the vague tendencies of any more unlimited 
form of priority. In this connection it may be pointed out that any 
such provision as the fifty year limit, proposed by the distinguished 
Berlin botanists to simplify nomenclature by eliminating certain vague 
and obsolete generic names, becomes an expedient of doubtful value 
if at the same time all the numerous specific names published under 
these genera must still be maintained as valid. It is believed that 
this problem, however, can be logically and effectively settled by 
supplementing a generic restriction by the rule of priority imder the 
gefius. (4) The legalization of the first binomial obviates particular 
legislation regarding such tasteless and objectionable names as Catalpa 
Catalpa, Opuntia Opuntia, Cerastium cerastioides, etc., these having 
arisen, almost without exception, as later combinations. (5) The 
rule of priority under the genus is easy to apply. In general it is a 
relatively simple matter to determine the earliest name applied to 
a given species under its proper genus. On the other hand, it is 
often a matter of extreme difficulty to be certain that no earlier spe- 
cific name has been used for the same plant under some remote genus. 
(6) Priority under the genus is not an untried theory. It has been 
amply tested by application in works of great importance and 
exceptional lucidity by such masters of botanical taxonomy as 
Bentham, Hooker, f., and Asa Gray. 
Note. — The rigid enforcement of any rule of priority is sure to cause, at 
least during the transition period, a certain inconvenience. Should it be 
thought that a consistent application of priority under the genus would bring 
