THE PLACE OF LATIN IN SYSTEMATIC BOTANY 
121 
Sib thorp, Flora Graeca (1806-40), Halacsy, Conspectus Florae Graecae 
(1900-08), Velenovsky, Flora Bulgarica, and Hayek, Prodromus Florae 
Peninsulae Balanicae (1924 — ). 
Among extra-European Floras may be mentioned Boissier, Flora Orientalis 
(1867-81), Janbert and Spach, Illustrationes Plantarum Orientalium (1842-57), 
Desfontaines, Flora Atlantica (1798), Webb and Berthelot, Histoire Naturelle 
des lies Canaries (1835-60), Ledebour, Flora Altaica (1829-34), Thunberg, 
Flora Japonica (1784), Siebold and Zuccarini, Flora Japonica (1835-70), 
Wallich, Plantae Asiaticae Rariores (1830-32), Jacquemont, Voyage dans l’lnde 
Botanique(1844), Miguel, Flora Indiae Batavae (1855-60), Labillardiere, Novae 
Hollandiae Plantarum Specimen (1804-06) and Sertum Austro-Caledonicum 
(1824), R. Brown, Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae (1810), F. Mueller, 
FragmentaPhytographiae Australiae (1852-82), J. D. Hooker, Flora Antarctica, 
Guillemin and Perrottet, Florae Senegambiae Tentamen (1830-33), A. Richard, 
Tentamen Florae Abyssinicae (1847-51), Thunberg, Flora Capensis (1807-13), 
Michaux, Flora Boreali- Americana (1803), Pursh, Flora Americae Septentri- 
onalis (1814), W. J. Hooker, Flora Boreali- Americana (1833-40), N. J. Jacquin, 
Selectarum Stirpium Americanarum Historia (1763), Swartz, Flora Indiae 
Occidentalis (1797-1806), Urban, Symbolae Antillanae ( ), Humboldt, 
Bonpland and Kunth, Nova Genera (18 - ), Martius, Nova Genera et 
Species Plantarum Brasiliensium (1824-29), St Hilaire, Flora Brasiliae Meri- 
dionalis (1825-32), Ruiz and Pavon, Flora peruviana et chilensis (1798-1802). 
It is evident that without a good working knowledge of botanical Latin 
a systematic botanist is so badly handicapped that he cannot be regarded as 
really efficient. It is incumbent on every professional systematist who at the 
commencement of his career is without such knowledge to acquire it without 
delay, so that he may be able to profit by the works of his predecessors and to 
check modern identifications by comparison with the original descriptions. 
Nowadays most Floras are written in modern languages so as to suit the 
convenience of a majority of their readers. Those botanists who are working 
on the floras of particular regions will naturally acquire the language or 
languages used in botanical works dealing with the regions in question, but 
monographers and authors of revisions of widespread genera obviously cannot 
afford the time to learn even the elements of several of the less known modern 
languages. Hence it is extremely desirable that all descriptions of new groups 
should either be in Latin or be accompanied by a Latin diagnosis, in which the 
salient features of the new group are indicated. This was recognized at the 
International Botanical Congress of Vienna (1905), and a Rule was adopted 
that on and after January 1, 1908, names of new groups should not be recog- 
nized as valid unless they were accompanied by a diagnosis or description in 
Latin. During the seventeen years 1908-1924, however, over ten thousand 
new species of Flowering Plants were published without a Latin description 
