230 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
PLANT NOMENCLATURE, 11. 
Plants were described before they were named and 
gradually their descriptions were reduced until trino- 
mials were adopted and still later binomials. All sys- 
tematists of eminence have recognized the desirability of 
a standard based upon principle, and among the prin- 
ciple codes proposed by recognized scientists or organi- 
zations for guiding writers in botany or zoology were: 
Ue Candolle in 1813; British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science in 1842; Association of Ameri- 
can Geologists and Naturalists in 1845; International 
Botanical Congress at Genoa in 1865; American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science, 1877; Societe 
Zoologique Internationale, 1882; American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union, 1883-85; International Botanical Con- 
gress, Genoa, 1892; and Botanical Club, American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science, 1892-93. 
Ornithologists have experienced the same confusion 
of nomenclature, until in 1886 a rigid code was adopted 
which enables their writings to be expressed in extreme 
simplicity and convey an accurate impression impossible 
in botany without at least the citation of an authority 
and usually a number of synonyms. 
Simplification of nomenclature may be brought 
about in two principal ways: 
1. General agreement of botanists to adopt certain 
names that are to remain permanent. This has the de- 
cided objection of giving authority too arbitrary a 
power, and even though it might work successfully for 
a period, principle does not dominate it and would not 
be continually followed, which is equal to saying that 
the revolution is postponed, not avoided. 
2. Deciding according to the principle of priority 
is by general though not unanimous agreement consid- 
ered to be the best solution. 
To give definiteness, stability and uniformity to such 
a code, the oldest work that is most complete and scien- 
tific according to our concepti ons of the study of plants 
must be settled upon and this point is marked by Lin- 
nteus. 
Even though constant alterations have been going 
on among botanists, this general upheaval is as repug- 
nant and hampering as it possibly can be to any person 
connected with the commercial handling of plants, and 
any remedy likely to appear must come from scientists. 
Perhaps one reason why American botanists have 
not brought about this revolution at an earlier date has 
been the respect and veneration they chose to show 
towards the autnors of our local botanies and manuals; 
but mere sentiment has ceased to impede the progress 
of science In this respect. After deciding upon a new 
departure a committee of the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science empowered a committee 
to complete a list of names of the North American 
plants as they would appear according to the new code. 
This has been done and represents the ideas of the asso- 
ciation. Unfortunately the list is not complete or it 
would rapidly obliterate the general necessity of the 
burdensome usage of attaching the authorities of plant 
names employed in writing. 
As before noted this code has not received the en- 
dorsement of all American botanists, and among the 
notable masters who contend is Dr. Robinson of Cam 
bridge, who is of opinion that there can be no stability 
in nomenclature and that the principle of priority should 
not decide the name of a plant, but rather that the de- 
cision as to what name should be used for genera should 
be left to the judgment of individual botanists; but this - 
must result in a continuance of the present status. 
Others prefer the adoption of a standard work as arbi- 
trary authority, but the fallacy of this has been demon- 
strated by the disuse of such as Pfeiffer’s Nomenclator 
and Stendel’s Nomenclator. General adoption of the 
ideas in the present code was not general when “Index 
Kewensis” was started— a fact much to be regretted 
since this monumental index might have served as a 
nomenclator for a long period in the future. However, 
the principle of a nomenclator at all is at fault if in- 
tended as a standard basis of nomenclature for all time. 
Supposing, however, that Dr. Robinson’s proposition 
was agreed upon, it would involve more or less changing 
and its principal usefulness is expected to render the 
changes gradual. It is suggested that — “while the scope 
of the rule is left to the direction of writers, it is urged 
that generic nomenclature should not at present depart 
far from that of the three important works: Bentham & 
Hooker’s Genera Plantarum, Baillon’s Historie des 
Plantes, and Engler & Prautl Naturlichen Pflanzenfami- 
lien, but the differences in these three works are so 
marked that to a great extent the means would defeat 
its own end. Emil Mische. 
( 7o be continued) . 
Among the Anglo-Saxons such tribes as practiced 
the right of inhumation seem for the most part to have 
committed their dead to the earth in the very simplest 
form, unprotected by coffin or aught that could delay 
the work of decay. The sole example of a todten-baum, 
therefore, is that of Gristhorpe, in Yorkshire, and this 
belongs to the Celtic period. But it was not so with the 
Franks. Round Merovingian graves a black residuum 
will often be noticed, which might easily be taken for 
charcoal, but which has been shown by chemical analy- 
sis to be formed by decomposition of wood. This re- 
siduum is very solid, and, as nails do not appear to be 
met with, it is most probable that these old P'rankish 
noffi, naun, or sarcophagi were in fact formed from 
solid trunks of trees. In a Merovingian cemetery dis- 
covered just outside the gates of Metz, M. Victor Simon 
found the marble column of some Roman edifice which 
had been sawn asunder and hollowed out to receive the 
remains of a Frankish chieftain, in lieu perchance of 
the more perishable todten-baum. Herr Lindenschmidt 
also has met with the same circumstance at Mayence. 
The opinion, too, finds further confirmation in a remark- 
able passage in Gregory of Tours relating the cruelty of 
Rauchingus, a Merovingian noble, who prepared a tree 
for the purpose, and caused two of his slaves to be 
interred alive therein for marrying without his consent. 
. — The Casket. 
