The Brussels Congress of Botanists. 261 
efforts of phytogeographers, and of bringing them back, as far as 
possible, to the observation of nature and to the interpretation of 
concrete phenomena.” Messrs. Flahault & Schroter were appointed 
Secretaries and were requested by the commission to present to 
the Brussels Congress a report on phytogeographical nomenclature 
which would serve as a basis for discussion. The Reporters at 
once placed themselves in communication with botanists engaged 
in phytogeographical research, and in the spring of the present 
year issued a Report representing their efforts to disentangle from 
correspondence and from published works those elements which 
they found it necessary to submit for discussion to the Brussels 
Congress, and embodying also their own matured views and 
recommendations. This Report is a very valuable document, for 
it contains not only an able discussion by the Reporters of the 
principles and practice of phytogeographical nomenclature and 
cartography, but also a number of recommendations and sug¬ 
gestions sent in by various phytogeographers from Europe and 
America. The recommendations and suggestions emanating from 
different workers are however very diverse and in many instances 
contradictory, and the voting of the members of the commission on 
certain of them selected by the Reporters and recorded in a 
document issued at the Congress shows that there is nothing 
approaching unanimity among phytogeographers on many of the 
points raised. The recommendations of the Reporters themselves, 
however, it is fair to add, obtained in all cases a majority of votes 
by members of the commission, and in several cases unanimous 
assent. 
At Brussels a private meeting of the phytogeographers present 
was held before the session of the Congress devoted to the subject. 
The long discussion which took place at this meeting further 
emphasised the divergence of opinion on several fundamental 
points, and taking this into consideration the Reporters most wisely 
refrained from presenting to the Congress any recommendations 
but those on which they were practically certain of unanimity. 
The restraint and moderation shown by the Reporters in not 
pressing even those of their own recommendations on which there 
was lack of unanimity, though, as shown by the voting of the 
commission^ they would certainly have obtained large majorities, 
cannot be too highly praised. In the present state of the subject 
it would be most undesirable to attempt to bind workers even with 
the loose bonds of “ Recommendations ” of Congress unless 
complete conviction is carried as to the scientific and logical 
validity of the principles involved. 
The recommendations actually submitted at the session of 
Congress on Friday, May 20th, were substantially as follows :— 
(1) . Every author should state exactly what he understands 
by the terms he uses. 
(2) . The native names of different kinds of vegetation 
belonging to various languages should be retained. 
(3) . The principle of priority (as recognised in taxonomic 
nomenclature) is inadmissible in phytogeographical terminology. 
(4) . A lexicon of synonyms in use in various languages, with 
bibliographical references to their use, should be compiled by an 
editorial commission. 
(5) . Engler’s colour scheme for maps of tropical vegetation 
is recommended for general use. 
(6) . Ecological phytogeography may be defined as the study 
