TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION. 
35 
as a system, is to be compared at all with a scientific classification of plants 
as indulged in by the scientific botanists. 
Then the plea I would make in favor of a systematic nomenclature is this, 
that it is the beginning of a scientific pomology; that upon this basis of a 
scientific nomenclature our advancement in that direction must depend. I 
am appealing, then, for a scientific pomology; and let me pause a moment to 
explain what I mean by that. There are so many varieties in almost every 
class of fruit that no one man can be acquainted with them all, and a man 
is at a loss to keep track of any one branch. No botanist pretends to know all 
the plants in the world; he may not even know all the plants in his own State; 
but by having them classified he is able to learn more about them in a general 
way than he could otherwise, though he may not have the time to become 
acquainted with the plants individually. In this way we are able to know 
about certain groups and types of fruits. A man can learn these types, can 
become acquainted with them and thereby have a broad, stable, useful 
knowledge of pomology in general, without being obliged to study each variety 
by itself. This is what I am talking about when I speak of systematic 
pomology and when I say that systematic pomology depends upon a stable 
nomenclature. 
The question arises, what is required in a stable nomenclature. It has been 
thought that a certain set of rules was necessary. I suppose it is true that we 
will need some rules, but I think that, to a great extent, an erroneous view 
has been taken in regard to rules. As w T e are now taking lessons from the 
botanists we might profit by looking at the history of their work. When 
Alphonse De Candolle read the preamble and a large part of the rules before 
the Paris Congress, many years ago, one of the first statements he made was 
this, that rules should not be arbitrary nor imposed by authority; and in 
another paragraph he declared that the rules should be so reasonable that they 
would appeal to the understanding of everybody. These two statements 
mean practically the same thing; that is to say, the American Pomological 
Society could go ahead here and make a long string of rules; but if those rules 
are arbitrary and are merely the dictum of this Society, they would not be 
observed to any great extent and would therefore be valueless in attaining 
the objects sought to be accomplished by a system of nomenclature. There 
are certain fundamental necessities which must be satisfied in rules of 
nomenclature; and, as I look upon it, all that can be done in framing a series 
of rules is merely to formulate the necessity, so that we can all agree upon 
some expression of certain fundamental principles of nomenclature. 
In what I may say here I shall refer, from time to time, to a series of 
rules quite widely published through the country last winter, under the 
name of “The Lazy Club Rules.” The Lazy Club, having nothing to do for 
a time, fought over this plan, last year, at Cornell University, and made it 
a source of much amusement. They developed at that time*a system or 
formula which appeared to embrace the fundamental principles of nomencla- 
ture. The first principal is, “Priority of publication;” and the rule as formu- 
lated here is this, “No two varieties in the same group shall have the same 
name” (that is half the rule), “and the name first published for a variety 
must be used to designate it.” Another rule is, “All names subsequently 
published must stand as synonyms.” It seems to me that that rule is not one 
that is open to any exceptions. I am aware that, like every other arbitrary 
rule, it will work some injustice; and in’ certain cases it would be well if we 
could work around it; but, so far as the rule is concerned, it is not possible, 
