AMENDMENTS TO THE PARIS CODE OF 
BOTANICAL NOMENCLATURE. 
Sugfgfested for the consideration of the Vienna Congress of 1905 
by the botanists of the Gray Herbarium, the Cryptogamie 
Herbarium, and the Botanical Museum of Harvard Uni- 
versity. 
INTRODUCTORY. 
The Paris Code of 1867, notwithstanding its high scholarship and 
general excellence, has proved an unsatisfactory nomenclatorial guide. 
This has been due to its vagueness in dealing with several matters of 
fundamental importance. Among the points which it failed to deter- 
mine with sufficient definiteness the following, as well as some others, 
are still controversial. 
1. The date or dates from which priority should be reckoned. 
2. The relation of the specific name to the binomial combination. 
3. The relation of subspecific, varietal, or formal names to those 
of specific rank. 
4. Homonyms. 
5. Priority of position. 
Usage upon these points has unfortunately become so diverse and 
some of the differing practices are already so firmly fixed at the 
various centres of botanical activity, that compromise will be difficult, 
and a unification of customs can be effected only at the expense of 
great effort and much inconveniénee. It would be difficult, however, 
to overstate the importance of an agreement upon these subjects, and 
certainly no code will be satisfactory which does not deal clearly with 
each of them. 
I. Initial Dates. 
In nearly all recent attempts to remodel botanical nomenclature it 
has been the practice to establish a single starting point from which 
