So far, so good but not an inch farther,, Since in a demo¬ 
cracy such as botany i^ the minority is not lined up against a wall but 
is allowed to survive and to use the pen as their sword,grievances can 
beAventilated and proposals dis cussed in view of turning the minority 
into a iajority«a^ 
Once an Article has been approved 
by the Botanical Congress'it can neither be rejected nor be mutilated 
to have it state what it does not mean. A botanist is left free to follow 
good usage when the consequences of the Rules are doubtful ( Art. 5 ), and 
he is to use his freedom in such a manner that stabilizes nomen¬ 
clature (Art. 4 ), stability of names 
being the ultimate goal of the Articles. A clear mandateAin the Rules is 
/ ir'f'A 
there to stay^and it shall stand^until^properly revoked. If this mandate 
is unwise it can be fought best by those ^ who rigidly enforce it. Enforce* 
be brought to the attention 
of the bodies at the proper time 0 Flouting Articles because 
they are not liked or not understood i 
begets anarchy much sooner 
than reform. Some contend that the Rules are a nuisance,as it were cavils 
laid over botany. Be i« so: the alternative to the Rules is chaos^in 
<yi !*-*>— 
nomenclature. This is an evil,that is, something that is^less tolerable 
than a nuisance 0 
Cook points out that the name Hevea is based upon a mis¬ 
application of native names and that Aublet was guilty,anyway,of intro¬ 
ducing into taxonomy swarms of barbarous 
words. This is true as 
a fact. It is not less true a fact , however, that the Rules aa$r ( Art. 
S O \ 
15 ) ifafcmw jjcte: ” The purpose of giving a name to a taxonomic group is 
not to indicate the characters or the history of the group, but to supply 
a means of referring to it They state likewise( Art. 25 ): " These 
( generic ) names may be taken from any source whatever,and may even be 
