36 
AMERICAN POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 
I believe, to make any exception to it without destroying altogether the force 
of all rules. It is one, I say, that is open to discussion and objection; the 
objections to it may be serious; but I think that the principle itself is 
unassailable. 
Now, with regard to the form of the names, certain principles are to be ob- 
served but these are not so fundamental as the priority rule. They are more 
of an arbitrary nature and are of such great importance in making up a 
nomenclature that it seems to me worth while to call them fundamental 
principles. In the first place it is required that the variety of a fruit shall 
consist of one word or, at most of two words. The botanists have adopted 
some such rule as that, and it works fairly well. I think it necessary to have 
some such rule for pomological nomenclature; and I think we are coming 
very rapidly to recognize the justice and propriety of such a rule and to live 
up to it more and more. Several suggestions are made here in connection 
with this rule but I do not deem it necessary to read them to you. 
In the second place it is stated in these rules, in connection with specifying 
the form of a name, that in the formal citation of a variety there shall always 
be given the name of the author who first published it. It is not understood 
that this shall be done except in cases of necessity, where one is publishing 
an entire group or where there is some doubt about it. For instance, when 
you speak of the Gold plum, it is necessary for you to specify whether you 
mean Mr. Terry’s Gold or Stark Brothers’ Gold. 
A rule of priority brings up the question of publication. It seems necessary 
to formulate this matter of publication into a sort of a rule. I have said that 
priority of publication should be the supreme rule in nomenclature. Now, 
what is the publication? According to the formula which is given here, pub- 
lication consists first in “the public distribution of a printed name with a 
description, the latter giving the distinguishing character of the fruit,” etc.; 
or second, “in the publication of a new name for a variety which is fully 
described elsewhere.” Then, in an explanatory way, it is stated here that 
such a publication may be made in any bulletin, report, trade catalogue or 
periodical, provided such publication bears the date of its issue and is gener- 
ally distributed. It is necessary that it should bear the date of its issue in 
order that you may determine which publication has the priority. It seems to 
me necessary that we should include in this list trade catalogues and every- 
thing of that sort. I think that the way to introduce varieties now is through 
the trade catalogue, and it probably will be so for years to come. Mr. Bur- 
bank has a variety for sale; he sends it out in his new catalogue; and that 
is the first time the description is given and the first time it is introduced 
to the horticultural public.. Or if a man has a strawberry which he wants 
to name “Dewey,” as was the fashion last spring, he may make a rush for 
the newspapers and try to get the description into the newspapers under a 
prior dote and attain priority in that way. I think we should cut it down 
to some such rule which Tvill require us to depend upon this as a mark of 
authenticity. 
One more rule is this: “No one is authorized to change a name for any 
reason except when it conflicts with these rules.” Of course that is a mere 
addition and intended to guard against mistakes. Some persons may say. 
in regard to the name “Transparent,” for instance, “This is not satisfactory; 
it indicates that the variety is transparent but it is not transparent at all; 
we will call it ‘mud’ or something more nearly descriptive of the variety.” 
At any rate you should understand that the name is not the description of 
