^9 
never now employed by lichenologists, although not with much defi- 
niteness placed in synonymy. On the other hand, the serious revival 
of the earlier of two homonyms in any monograph or flora is, it is 
believed, a sufficient ground for changing the other. 
5. Priority of Position. 
When it is necessary to select for use one of two or more names 
published for the same plant or group of plants simultaneously in the 
same work, it is by all means the simplest and most logical course to 
take the first (in position) as the valid name, reducing to synonymy the 
one or more which follow. This rule affects such a small number of 
names that it can be put into practice without serious inconvenience 
especially if generic nomenclature is safe-guarded by some such 
excellent restrictions as those proposed by the staff of the Royal 
Botanical Museum of Berlin. 
For the reasons above stated, the undersigned, having 
complied with the requisitions of circulars of the Perma- 
nent Bureau, respectfully recommend to the International 
Commission of Botanical Nomenclature and the Congress 
to be convened at Vienna in June, 1905, the following 
CHANGES IN THE LAWS OF BOTANICAL NOMEN- 
CLATURE OF 1867.1 
Art. 3. The chief aims of ?wmenclature are (i) to determiîie fiâmes 
with definitefiess and to provide for their stability, whether they are 
simple {as those of genera, families, etc.) or composite {as in the case of 
species, subspecies, varieties, and forms)., (2) to avoid or reject the use 
of names or modes in the application of names, that may create error 
or ambiguity or introduce confusion. 
Next in importance is the avoidance of any useless introduction of 
new names or combinations of names. 
Other considerations, such as absolute grammatical correctness, 
regularity or euphony of names, a more or less prevailing custom, 
1 The English here employed follows as far as possible the translation of 
Weddell. Portions changed or added are printed in italics. 
