THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN 
437 
the same, or other varieties, hut which have be¬ 
come thoroughly established through long usage 
shall not be displaced. 
Form of Names. 
Rule 2. The name of a variety of fruit shall consist 
of a single word, whenever possible, or compatible with 
the most elhcient service to pomology. Under no circum¬ 
stances shall more than two words be used. When the 
exigencies of a case make it appear expedient such words 
as early, late, while, red, and similar ones may be used 
as part of a name. 
A:—No variety shall be named unless distinctly su¬ 
perior to existing varieties in some important 
characteristic nor until it has been determined to 
perpetuate it by bud propagation. 
B:—In selecting names for varieties the following 
points should be emphasized: distinctiveness, sim¬ 
plicity, ease of pronunciation and spelling, indica¬ 
tion of origin or parentage. 
G:—The spelling and pronunciation of a varietal 
name derived from a personal or geographical 
name should be governed by the rules that control 
the spelling and pronunciation of the name from 
which it was derived. 
D:—A variety imported from a foreign country 
should retain its foreign name subject only to such 
modification as is necessary to conform it to this 
code or to render it intelligible in English. 
E:—The name of a person should not be applied to a 
variety during his life without his expressed con¬ 
sent. The name of a deceased horticulturist 
should not be so applied except through formal ac¬ 
tion by some competent horticultural body, pre¬ 
ferably that with which he was most closely con¬ 
nected. 
F;-—The use of such general terms as seedling, hy¬ 
brid, pippin, pearmain, buerre, rare-ripe, damson. 
etc., is not admissible. 
G:—The use of a possessive noun as a name is not 
admissible. 
II:—The use of a number either singly or attached 
to a word should be considered only as a tempor¬ 
ary expedient while the variety is undergoing pre¬ 
liminary test. 
I:—In applying the various provisions of this rule to 
an existing varietal name that has through long 
usage become firmly imbedded in American pom- 
ological literature no change shall be made which 
will involve loss of identity. 
Rule 3. In the full and formal citation of a variety 
name, the name of the author who first published it shall 
also be given. 
Publication 
Rule 4. Publication consists (1) in the distribution of 
a printed description of the variety named, giving the dis¬ 
tinguishing characters of fruit, tree, etc., or (2) in the 
publication of a new name for a variety that is properly 
described elsewhere; such jiublication to be made in any 
book, bulletin, report, trade catalogue or periodical, pro¬ 
viding the issue bears the date of its publication and is 
generally distributed among nurserymen, fruit growers, 
and horticulturists; or (3) in certain cases the general 
recognition of a name for a propagated variety in a com¬ 
munity for a number of years shall constitute publication 
of that name. 
A:—In determining the name of a variety to which 
two or more names have been given in the same 
publication, that which stands first shall have pre¬ 
cedence. 
Revision 
Rule 5. No properly published variety name shall be 
changed for any reason except conflict with this code, nor 
shall another variety be substituted for that originally 
described thereunder. 
WHY N. Y. STATE GOVERNMENT SELLS TREE SEEDLINGS 
November 4, 1914. 
Editor, “National Nurseryman,” 
Flourtown, Pa. 
Dear Sir:— 
In the National Nurseryman for November, 1914, 
which by the way is an unusually interesting issue, on 
page 406 you have an editorial entitled “New York State 
Government in Competition with Nurserymen.” I feel 
that possibly you do not understand the history of the de¬ 
velopment of State Forest Nurseries in New York and 
their present relation to a state-wide plan for reforesta¬ 
tion and to private nurserymen and firms of private land¬ 
scape engineers or consulting foresters. It is farthest 
from the idea of the State Conservation Commission at 
Albany or of this College to compete in any way with the 
private nurserymen or the forester or landscape gardener 
in private practice. We have repeated this statement 
many times in our publications and in public lectures, 
and are trying to live up to it in every possible way be¬ 
cause we believe with you that the State should not com¬ 
pete with private industry. 
Some ten years ago when the Conservation Commis¬ 
sion, which was then the State Forest, Fish and Game 
Commission, took up the question of the reforestation of 
State lands, it was not only impossible to secure stock for 
reforestation in any quantities, but the prices charged 
made it absolutely impossible to begin reforestation. Mr. 
G. R. Pettis, who is at present Superintendent of State 
Forests, and probably one of the best forest nurserymen 
in the United States, took hold of the matter and devel¬ 
oped a couple of small Slate Nurseries. He carried on a 
great deal of experimental work and finally achieved re¬ 
sults that were comparable with the best forest nurseries 
in Europe. A large proportion of the stock produced in 
these nurseries was put out on State land. This sort of 
work, as you will imagine, created a great deal of inter¬ 
est through the State and soon there were so many in¬ 
quiries for stock and for information about it that the 
Conservation Commission decided to sell this stock at a 
figure a little above cost, not with the idea of competing 
with private nurseries, because there were a few private 
nurseries able to supply this stock, but with the idea of 
its being general educational work. That is, should a 
land owner purchase from one to ten thousand trees and 
