EE
MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN LIBRARY
ca,
Conservation of this volume completed through a grant from the
Camelot Fund 1978-79
Z REVISIO i AS
| GENERUM PLANTARUM
SECUNDUM
LEGES NOMENCLATURAE INTERNATIONALES.
CUM
ENUMERATIONE PLANTARUM EXOTICARUM.
PARS Ill."
MIT ERLAÁUTERUNGEN
*
(TEXTE EN PART FRANQGQAIS; PARTLY ENGLISH TEXT)
VON
Ds OTTO KUNTZE,
ORDENTLICHEM, AUSLANDISCHEM UND EHREN-MITGLIEDE MEHRERER GELEHRTER GESELLSCHAFTEN.
COMMISSIONEN.
LEIPZIG: Arthur Felix. : | MiraAwNO:U.Hoepli,37 CorsoVittore Emanuele. Lowpow: Dulau & Co., 37 Soho Square. | NEW-Yonk:Gust. E. Stechert, 828 Broadway.
|
Pagi: Charles Klineksieck, 11 Rue de Lille. 1893.
E MANU SCRIPTORIS;
REVISIO E
GENERUM PLANTARUM
SECUNDUM LEGES NOMENCLATURAE INTERNATIONALES. CUM
ENUMERATIONE PLANTARUM EXOTICARUYM.
PARS IlII'.
MIT ERLAÁUTERUNGEN
(TEXTE EN PART FRANCAIS; PARTLY ENGLISH TEXT)
VON
Ds. OTTO KUNTZE,
ORDENTLICHEM, AUSLÁNDISCHEM UND EHREN-MITGLIEDE MEHRERER GELEHRTER GESELLSCHAFTEN.
COMMISSIONEN. LEIPZIG: Arthur Felix. MILANO: U. Hoepli, 37 CorsoVittore Emanuele. Lowpow: Dulau & Co,, 37 Soho Square. NEW-Yonk:Gust. E. Stechert, 828 Broadway. PARIS: Charles Klinceksieck, 11 Rue de Lille.
1893.
MiSSOURI BOTANICAL GAPDEN LIBRARY
Druck der kgl. Universitiütsdruckerei von H. Stürtz in Würzburg.
— 77 yid ; i
Vorwort zum 95. Dand.
Als ich Ende October 1891 mein Werk Revisio generum plantarum nach jahrelangem emsigem Bemühen, das Richtige und zur Harmonie Führende zu finden, beendigt hatte, unternahm ich eine Erholungsreise von 14 Monaten nach Südamerika, wobei ich diesen Continent zweimal kreuzte und 6 Staaten südlich des Aequators durchstreifte. Ich habe dabei neues Pflanzenmaterial gesammelt, mindestens ebensoviel als auf der ersten Weltreise; dessen systematische Be- stimmung soll nun den 3. Band meines Werkes füllen.
Inzwischen haben sich auch die Meinungen über meine Revisio generum reichlich geáussert, ófters in recht extremen Urtheilen. "Ausserdem hat mein Werk eine von Berlin ausgehende Revolution hervorgerufen, die sich angeblich gegen mein Werk, thatsáchlich aber gegen den Pariser Codex, d. h. die Lois de la nomenclature botanique des Pariser Congresses 1867, richtete. Die Re- volution kam erst zum Ausbruch, als Professor Paul A scherson durch einige Unterlegungen des Gegentheiles von dem, was ich geschrieben, mich lácherlich gemacht und sich zum Scehriftführer und Macher der ganzen Bewegung habilirt hatte. Dieser unwahre und irreführende Zug ist auch an der Revolution bis zum Genueser Congress haften geblieben und hatte zur Folge, dass der Congress unter Vernachlüssigung der meisten legislativen Formalitáten nichts als Absur- ditáten beschlossen hat, so dass seine Beschlüsse werthlos sind und nicht Ge- setzeskraft erlangen kónnen.
Um nun die verfahrene Sache wieder in das rechte Gleis zu bringen und auch ein getreues Bild der Bewegung in der botanischen Nomenclatur von Ende 1891 bis Anfang Mai 1893 zu geben, muss ich eine authentische Wiedergabe der bezüglichen Sehriftstücke liefern; an diese werde ich dann meine Kritik und Besserungsvorschlüge knüpfen. Ieh hátte beim Wiederabdruck vieles kürzen kónnen; damit hátte ich aber meinen Gegnern, die in der Wahl ihrer Mittel und Ausdrücke nicht immer wühlerisch waren, nur Stoff zu Misstrauen gegeben. Ich will durch unparteiiseche Wiedergabe dieser Schriften, die doch nur Wenigen alle zugünglich sein werden und auch von mir zuweilen sehwer zu erlangen waren, Jedermann in den Stand setzen, sich selbst ein Urtheil im Nomenclatur- streit zu bilden; ein Paar Publicationen habe ich aber trotz aller Bemühungen noch nicht erhalten kónnen.
Dagegen ist es nieht meine Absicht, solche Schriften von Autoren abzu- drucken und zu kritisiren, welche meine naeh dem Pariser Codex reformirten
Kuntze, Rev. gen. I
in] AN x
CLVIII
Namen ganz oder zum Theil annahmen, noch meine Gegengründe gegen manche Correcturen von Namenveránderungen hier darzulegen. Es geschieht dies bloss ausnahmsweise, wenn wie z. B. bei Briquet's Publieation über Labiaten oder Zahl- bruckner's über Flechtengattungen oder Hiteheock's über. Bahama plants allgemeinere Interessen berührt werden. Es soll dieser einleitende Theil des 3. Bandes nicht oder nur gelegentlich mit den Namen im Einzelnen, sondern mehr mit der Nomenclatur im Allgemeinen sich bescháftgen. Es ist auch nicht meine Absicht, alle Behauptungen der Kritiker zu besprechen oder zu widerlegen; es kritisiren ja Manche in ihren Besprechungen weniger das Buch als sich selbst.
Die Nomenclatur ist 1892 ófters eine Sache der Convenienz genannt worden; das ist z. Th. unriehtig, z. Th. zweideutig; unter Convenienz verstehen die Deutschen und Franzosen (convenance) zunüchst Convention, die Englünder aber nur Schicklichkeit (convenience — expediency ist nieht convention) Nun meinten mehrere englische Botaniker und auch der inzwischen verstorbene Sereno Watson, Jeder kónne thun und lassen, was er für schicklich hielte oder wie mehrere Englánder, was ihnen am meisten convenire, womit sie dann ihre oft maasslose Willkür glaubten entschuldigen zu kónnen. Damit kann keine ein- heitliche Nomenelatur erzielt werden. Die Nomenclatur ist vielmehr Sache einer Convention und darauf gebauter wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Oder in er- weiterten Worten: Die Nomenclatur ist Sache der auf einer einzigen, in Paris 1867 begründeten, nur zu ergünzenden Convention beruhenden Harmonie zwischen den botanischen Systematikern und dann wissenschaftlicher Forschung in ehr- licher Ausführung des dem Pariser Codex zu Grunde liegenden Lex prioritatis.
Eine juridische Basis der Nomenclatur ist zur Harmonie unter den Bo- tanikern unbedingt nóthig, und diese war im Pariser Codex gegeben; es kann sich bloss um dessen weiteren Ausbau handeln, nicht aber um damit unzusam- menhángende neue Regeln, wie solche 1892 verschiedenartig sowohl in Kopen- hagen, als in Rochester, U. St, als in Genua aufgestellt worden sind. Nur dureh eine solche juridische Basis kónnen widerstrebende Geister zur Ordnung geführt werden; andernfalls thut jeder der nicht wenigen botanischen Pübste, was er Lust hat, und die dauernde Disharmonie ist die Folge.
Die Veróffentlichung dieses Theiles (III bezweckt nicht, die in vol. I, II auf Grund exacter Durchführung des Pariser Codex zahlreichen neugegebenen Namen durchaus aufrecht zu erhalten; ich bin vielmehr zu betrüchtlichen Con- zessionen bereit, wenn die von mir motivirten wohlmeinenden, zwischen extremen Wünschen vermittelnden Zusütze und Emendationen zum Pariser Codex gesetz- liche Aufnahme finden. Da ich mir keines einzigen principiellen Verstosses gegen den Pariser Codex bewusst bin und meine Gegner mir einen solchen auch nieht nachweisen konnten, so habe ich auch keine Ursache, auf Grund des Pariser Codex erworbene Rechte ohne Compensation aufzugeben, und diese Com- pensation besteht in meinem Compromissvorschlag, welcher geeignet ist, bald Ordnung, Einigung und Ruhe in der Nomenclatur zwischen Botanikern herbei- zuführen.
Wenn ich viele Fehler erbarmungslos aufdecke, die 1892 in der Nomenclatur- bewegung gemacht worden sind, so ist dies gerechtfertigt, weil nur dadurch ge- zeigt werden kann, wie solche Fehler künftig vermieden werden kónnen und
E pue legislative Ergánzungen zum Pariser Codex zu formu- iren sind.
Ich habe die Repliken meist in de
: rjnigen Sprache in w die betreffenden Schriften erschienen war ved j PE
en; ebenso sind die wesentlichsten De-
noveno IU UCET TU WIUNTLAPNT
CLIX
duetionen in 3 Sprachen gegeben. Das Buch ist dadurch etwas polyglott ge- worden und die fremden Sprachen sind wohl auch nicht immer im besten Styl geschrieben; aber ich hoffe auf Nachsicht. Alle 4 internationalen Sprachen sind ja oft nur theoretisch bei vielen Botanikern vorhanden; ich hielt es bei der Wichtigkeit, die selbst Gegner meinen Bestrebungen auf Durchführung einheit- lieher Nomenclatur zuerkannten, für gerathen, mir lieber etwaige linguistische Vorwürfe machen zu lassen, als von Vielen nicht ordentlich verstanden zu werden.
Friedenau bei Berlin, im Mai 1893.
Dr. Otto Kuntze.
[*
$17. Nomenclatorische Publicationen, Kritiken und Repliken.
17. November 1891. Prof. Dr. 0. Drude in Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft S. 300/6. Bemerkungen zu Dr. Otto Kuntze's Aenderungen der systematischen Nomenclatur?).
Mit aussergewóhnlichem Fleiss, wie ihn nur wenige an die undankbare Arbeit einer allgemeinen Namensgebungs- Correctur auf Grund der Prioritit vom Jahre 1735 an setzen würden, hat der durch áühnliche Arbeiten bekannte Verfasser, an eine von ihm selbst in mehr als 7000 Arten aller Floren zusammengebrachte Pflanzensammlung anknüpfend, die Geschichte der Gattungsbenennung zum Hauptgegenstande langjühriger Studien gemacht und liefert dabei weit über 1000 neu aus dem Dunkel herausgezogene Gattungsnamen, mit deren Anwendung Correcturen zumal für Durand's ,Index' zu den Genera plantarum geschaffen werden sollen ; dieser, Index* wird von Kuntze viel weniger genau im Massstabe seiner Nomenclaturprincipien erklürt als Pfeiffer's früherer ,, Nomenclator". An die Gattungs- Umbenennung anschliessend müssen naturgemüss sehr vielmehr Artennamen wechseln, etwa 30000 an der Zahl, wührend weitere 1600 aus Prioritütsrücksichten auch noch in gleicher Gattung wiederum neu eingeführte Speciesnamen erhalten haben. Es handelt sich also hier um den Versuch einer phytographi- schen Reform in Hinsicht auf ,,móglichst gerechtes Durchführen der Nomenclatur - Prioritàt, um eine Arbeit, zu der die betheiligten Systematiker Stellung nehmen müssen, Ich zweifle gar nieht daran, dass Viele diese Studien von Kuntze einfach bei Seite schieben und die da- dureh verursaehte Unbequemlichkeit vermeiden werden; aber die Arbeit ist der wissenschaft- lichen Gerechtigkeit, wie man es zu nennen pflegt, zu Liebe gemacht, und ihr Princip sollte daher ernstlich erwogen werden. Ich selbst freilich, indem ich meinen früheren Stand- punkt in solehen Fragen, wie ieh ihn in Schenk's Handbuch der Botanik IV. 292—995 er- klürt habe, voll und ganz behaupte, muss aus allgemeinen Gründen auch diesen neuen Ver- such von Kuntze in Hinsicht auf den Gesammtplan ablehnen. Ieh bekenne mich also frei- müthig zu der schlimmsten Sorte der von dem Verfasser Angegriffenen, zu der ,,bósartigen Bequemliehkeit, welehe wissentlich Unrecht thut und nie zu entschuldigen ist, und wiederhole den vom Verfasser selbst nach Malinvaud citirten Satz: ,La grande majorité des naturalistes de nos jours sacrifient aisément toutes les autres considérations à l'avantage de la stabilité de la nomenclature; ils estiment que le langage scientifique est surtout une question d'utilité pratique et non pas, du moins au méme degré, une question d'esthétique ou de sentiment.
: ? Ich. habe alle gegnerischen Publicationen aufgenommen, selbst wenn ieh sie, wie obige, für verfehlt halte. Drude negirt nur, zerstórt das Gute und setzt nichts besseres an seine Stelle. Wenn er mir vorwirft, dass sachliche systematische Neuforschungen in meinem Werke fehlen Irrthum, der nur dadurch zu erklüren ist, dass er voreili Werk besass, nur nach einem von mir erhaltenen Auszu Tertipte. Es sind in meinem Werke 151 Genera einge trennt worden, ausserdem 109 monographische Revisione ünderungen der Genera entstanden aus der
ánderungen den Werth und die Um prüfen.
so ist das ein starker £, ehe er mein ganzes g sein obiges Elaborat zogen und 6 neuabge- n vorhanden. Die Ver- Nothwendigkeit, bei etwaigen Namens- grenzung der betreffenden Gattungen zu
CLXI
Nur das praktisehe Wohl der Phytographie soll dabei in's Auge gefasst werden! Ich selbst halte für die hauptsüchliehste Forderung moderner, auf die systematische Forschung Rücksicht nehmender Nomenclatur, dass die ültesten Autoren eines Namens eben nur ais die Namensquelle angesehen werden, die reformirenden Autoren aber als dessen Stütze, und dass die Litteraturcitate eher den Stützen als den Quellen anzuhüngen sind. Sehur sagt ein- mal sehr richtig: ,,Es ist ein grosser Fehler der Botaniker, zu glauben, dass die neuen Be- nennungen von Pflanzenformen nur den Bezeichnungen Linné's anzusehliessen seien. Die Zeit Linné's ist für uns ein Stück Alterthum, wo eine besehrünkte und unzureichende Erfahrung den Gesichtskreis. einengte.**
Wir haben jetzt nun schon mehrfach Proben von Versuchen aus neuerer Zeit, wenn auch keinen in dem Umfange wie den gegenwártigen, durch ein eonsequentes Aufsuchen der die Prioritit beanspruchenden Namen nach einer vorübergehenden Revolution in der Nomen- elatur endlieh Ruhe zu schaffen. "Thatsache ist indessen, dass diejenigen, welche sich einer geordneten Nomencelatur bedienen wollen, immer mehr das Stadium der gewünschten Ruhe in die Ferne gerückt sehen, dass die Verwirrung immer grósser wird, dass wir allgemach einer Auflósung der in früheren Jahrzehnten vielmehr gesicherten Einheitlichkeit entgegentreiben. Man denke an das in diesem Augenblick sieh in Wien abspielende Bild, wo Wettstein, Beck uud Riehter jeder in seiner Weise an der Nomenclatur europüischer Pflanzen bescháftigt ist, man vergleiche Riehter's und Nyman's Indices der Flora Europas. "Wahrscheinlich werden wir niemals in ein Fahrwasser allseitig befriedigter Ruhe gelangen, und, offen gesagt, es scheint auch nicht zu wünschen, denn diese ,Ruhe^* würde schliesslich Stagnation der Phytographie zu bedeuten haben. Es stehen sich aber zwei vom Grunde aus verschiedene Richtungen gegen- über: Die eine macht aus der Nomenelatur eine eigene, historisch zu begründende Disciplin und erhebt auf ihren Schild das Princip der ,,Gerechtigkeit/ gegen die Autoren als Be- gründer von Gattungen und Arten. Die andere wünscht die Namensgebung, so conservativ sie auch gehalten werden muss, nur als Mittel zum Zweck und nicht viel anders, als es in anderen Naturwissenschaften geschieht, zu behandeln und ist bereit, Namenwechsel der sach- liehen Grundlage zu Liebe eintreten zu lassen, dagegen die in der Botanik durch An- sehluss an bedeutende Quellenwerke (und also durch einen wohlverstandenen ,Usus^) einge- bürgerten Namen gegen solehe Umwülzungen zu schützen, welche lediglich auf ein oft sehr dunkles historisches Studium der Geschiehte jener Namensgebung hin veranlasst werden. (Vergl. Sechenk's Handb., a. a. O. Seite 201, Artikel 7 und 12: ,Die zuerst seit dem Erscheinen von Linné's Genera und Species plantarum in das Leben getretenen und in der Botanik ein- gebürgerten Namen haben an sich vor anderen Namen den Vorzug.*) Die erstere Rich- tung theilt sich in dem Streit über die Methode zur Erfüllung ihres Endzweckes in verschiedene Heerlager, unter dem jetzt O. Kuntze ein eigenes besetzt hat; die andere muss sich erst im Anschluss an die deseendenztheoretischen Grundlagen der Systematik freier zu entwickeln be- ginnen und muss folgerichtig die unbedingt — ewige Citation des ersten Autors perhorresciren, um diesen dureh denjenigen zu ersetzen, welcher von einer bestimmten Sippe zuerst eine für den augenblicklichen Zustand der Wissenschaft gültige Verwandtsehafts- Anordnung gegeben hat.
Als Anhàünger des letzteren Principes, welches, wie ich hoffe, spüter die Phytographie wird durchdringen müssen, da die starren Nomenelatur-Regeln die freien Arbeiten im System lahm legen, muss ich auch die mühevolle Arbeit von Kuntze für ihren Zweck verfehlt halten. Immerfort treffen wir in seinen Aeusserungen auf das , Verdienst^ der Autoren, deren Citation zu unterlassen ungerecht würe — ein meiner Meinung nach ganz unhaltbarer Standpunkt. Dass sieh dagegen diese Richtung nicht entschliessen mag, systematische Umarbeitungen als werth sowohl für eigene Namensgebung als auch für spütere Citation anzusehen, erscheint bisher nur aus dem Grunde bedenklich, weil man die Synonyme mitzuschleppen gewohnt ist; beschrünkt man dies auf das áusserste, so ist geholfen. Wenn Kuntze z. B. Vitis vinifera L.
Zwei Autoren haben sich schon gegen Drude geáussert. Dr. Carl Fritsch schreibt (efr. w. h.): ,Das Verdienst, welches sich Kuntze durch diese Nomen- clatur-Forsechungen erworben, ist in den Augen derjenigen, die in der strengen Durehführung von Nomenclatur-Regeln das einzige mógliche Ende der heutzu- tage herrsehenden Confusion sehen, ein ausserordentlich grosses, wührend natür- lich Andere, die derlei historische Forschungen für Zeitvergeudung halten, es sehr bedauern werden, dass der scharfsinnige Verfasser so viel Mühe und Zeit auf eine so secundüre Sache, wie die Nomenclatur verschwendet habe; von diesem Standpunkt aus hat Drude das Kuntze'sche Werk beurtheilt.^ Ausserdem móchte ich hier einige beherzigenswerthe Worte wiedergeben, die Fritsch in der óster- reichischen botanischen Zeitschrift vom Mai 1892 schreibt: ,Jeder, der irgend
CLXII
zige Art ansieht und dies begründen vill, 80 muss es auch
i n eieenen Namen nicht ankommen, denn keiner der von Linné gegebenen deckt aut a Be mi. "dd aber würden die amerikanischen und die oriental-europiüischen Formen diver dime Kuntze'schen Art unter den beiden Linné'schen Namen vim apex vielleicht in Range von Unterarten, auftreten müssen. Und von gleicher, oder noch von grósserer
ichtigkei heint dieses Princip bei den Gattungsnamen. sepe cogat "m üusseren Fori von den herrschenden Nomenclaturregeln Abweichungen
i lbst bei Handhabung der Namen für die Palmen-Gattungen móglichst dn EE sedan, dass das Autoreneitat auch dem Sinne der umsehriebenen Gattung vilem ag lls ei rbessernder Autor (Blume, Martius) hinter dem angepasst sein sollte, dass anderenfalls ein ve e : dius ome grs bs unveründert beibehaltenen ülteren Namen anzuführen TUN NOME. Eepen us werfen meiner Meinung nach das Prioritàtsrecht um. Hierfür ein lüngeres, durch Kuntze S Demerk- ungen über Nomenclatur der Palmen - Gattungen veranlasstes Beispiel, obwohl ps es einer spüteren Gelegenheit vorbehalten muss, dieses Kapitel in einer vollstándigeren Weise abzu- handeln. Es ist die Frage, ob Chamaedorea oder ANunnezharia als Gattungsname beizube- halten sei (Kuntze, Revisio p. 729). Ruiz und Pavon haben Morenia richtig und gut er- kennbar beschrieben und abgebildet, Nunnezharia nieht. Die Unterschiede beider Gattungen liegen bei Ruiz und Pavon ausser im Kelch und in der Zahl der ausreifenden Carpelle (welche bei beiden Gattungen 1—3 betragen) fülschlich in der Geschlechtsvertheilung , Nunnezharia ist als zwitterig blühend dargestellt, wührend die Diklinie sehr stark hervortritt und die Kolben immer nur nach einerlei Geschlecht auf jedem Trieb sitzen, eine für die Palmen nicht un- wiehtige, verhültnissmüssig seltenere Vertheilung *). Darnach war Willdenow, als er 10 Jahre spüter auf eine andere Art derselben Gattung seine Chamaedorea begründete, damit auf vollig wissenschaftlichem Wege, und er fand Anerkennung bei allen Zeitgenossen, wurde von Martius als Quelle genannt und in dem botanischen Sprachgebrauch für die zahlreichen amerikanischen Arten überführt. Was liegt nun jetzt für ein Grund vor, dass Kuntze die Umwandlung aller Chamaedorea- Axten in Nunnezharia (oder Nunnezharoa seiner Schreibweise) für nothwendig erklürt? Ja, wenn Martius an Stelle von Chamaedorea in seiner , Historia naturalis Pal- marum* den Namen NNunnezharia aufgegriffen und dafür Willdenow's Chamaedorea zu den
und Vitis Labrusca L. als eine ein
*) Freilieh führi die Geschlechtsvertheilung bei den Palmen oft zu sonderbaren Irr- thümern, von denen ieh einen neuen aus Kuntze's ,,Revisio' beleuchten móchte, nur, um die innere Quelle vou Fehlern an einem weiteren Beispiel zu erlüutern, welcher die verfallen, die ihr Augenmerk auf den phytographischen Nomenclatur-Apparat richten, anstatt ihren be- wunderungswürdigen Fleiss zu benutzen, um ihre eigenen Beobachtungen zur saehlichen Be- reicherung der schon festgestellten biologisch - systematischen Charactere der Pflanzenwelt ein- treten zu lassen. Kuntze beschreibt Geonoma obovata (Revisio, p. 728) als ,,rein diócisch"*, obwohl in einer langen Bemerkung zu den ,,Palmae brasilienses p. 476 das Fehlerhafte dieser Ansicht dargestellt ist. Von den drei im Grunde jeder tiefen Grube des fleischigen Kolbens eingesenkten jungen Blüthen entwickeln sieh zuerst die beiden seitenstündigen münnlichen kurz nacheinander und fallen ab, oft ohne Spuren zu hinterlassen; sehr viel spüter, nach Wochen und vielleieht znweilen nach Monaten, reift die bis dahin wie rudimentür erscheinende mittel- stándige weibliche Blüthe zur Vollentwiekelung heran und blüht: der ganze Kolben erscheint dann weiblich! Spruce hatte auf seiner Amazonenstrom-Reise einst ein G'eonoma in beginnen- der Fructifieation gesammelt, Mai 1852; er vereinigte diese Beobachtung mit mehreren ühn- liehen (ungenau) zu der Idee einer wechselnden Gesehleehtsfunetion auf derselben Pflanze. Damals war es Hermann Wendland, dessen scharfsichtige Beobachtungen aus Costa Rica und Herrenhausen diese Idee als in ihrer Grundlage verfehlt erklüren konnten.
eine Gruppe des Pflanzenreiches kritisch bearbeitet, ist heute genóthigt, einen
senschaft zwar ganz neben- auf die Richtigstellung der ch in der Beibehaltung der , lst zwar sehr verlockend, hat Ferner áussert sich Dr. P. Taubert im 21—22: ,Drude erklürt sich offen als recht. verurtheilten »Bequemlichkeit, die schuldigen ist*; er will unter Anderem, s nur als Namensquelle angesehen, die Stütze betrachtet werden sollen und dass n Stützen, als den Quellen anzuhüngen
"I TOPPED pene ET"
CLXIIT
Synonymen gestellt hütte, so würde auch ich natürlich diesem Quellenwerk gefolgt sein, hátte aber Nunnezharia R. et P. (emend, Mart.), kurzweg dem Sinne naeh Nunnezharia Mart. citirt. Der Name Chamaedorea war seiner Zeit richtig begründet und hat sich sein Bürgerrecht er- rungen, das sollte genügen, um ihn in Ruhe stehen zu lassen! Ebensowenig bin ich geneigt, mieh Kuntze in dem Umbenennen sámmtlieher ea. 200 Calamus-Arten in Palmijuncus anzu- schliessen, da letzterer Name aeht Jahre vor dem Erscheinen Ger Species plantarum (1753) erschienen sei. Martius und Blume citiren Palmijuncus von Rumpf im Herbarium amboinense als synonym mit Calamus. Auf diesen Quellenwerken weiterbauend haben wir zu arbeiten, und es liegt kein Grund vor, unter Zurückgreifen auf alte Werke, die seit jeher bekannt und benutzt waren, nunmehr aueh deren Namen, über die neueren reicheren Quellenwerke hinweg, uns wieder anzueignen, zum Schaden der Botanik. Wann glaubt Kuntze, dass Calamus und Chamaedorea aus der anatomisehen, physiologischen, geographischen, technischen, gártneri- schen Litteratur, ja aus den Sehulbüchern herauskommen werden, wenn auch wirklieh die eigentlichen Phytographen von diesem Augenblicke geneigt sein würden, und zwar in ein- schlügigen Werken, alle Calamus-Arten Palmijuneus zu benennen? Umtaufen hat seine grossen Schwierigkeiten, selbst, wo es mehr berechtigt ist, als in den beiden angeführten Fállen. Bei der Bearbeitung der , Palmae australasicae* mit H. Wendland erkannten wir die Richtigkeit, die bekannte indische Zuckerpalmengattung .JArenga mit dem von Blume's Meisterschaft wieder aufgenommenen üiteren Namen JSaguerus zu belegen (S. saecharifer Bl. 1837); bei einer An- wesenheit in Kew versuchte ich vergebens, Bentham zu bestimmen, in dem Widerstreit zwischen Martius und Blume's Quellenwerk letzterem in der Nomenclatur zu folgen: sowohl die Flora australiensis als die Genera plantarum bringen den Namen Airenga anstatt Saguerus. Damit schien mir dann hinterher der Beweis erbracht, dass .Arenga als ein eingebürgerter Name zu betrachten sei und in Engler-Prantl II. 54 habe ich daher diesen Namen vorangestellt. Ich móchte bezweifeln, ob Kuntze mit dem Vorschlage, die indische Gomuti-Palme künftig anstatt -Arenga, saccharifera, ,,Saguerus pinnatus Wurmb' zu benennen, mehr Erfolg haben wird,
Diese etwas ausführlich gehaltenen Beispiele zeigen, aus welchen Gründen ich die ganze Grundlage, auf weleher Kuntze gearbeitet hat, für die Wissenschaft nicht erspriesslich halte. Er steht innerlich mit sich selbst im Widerspruch, wenn man seine freimüthige Kritik des Jordanismus, der Sucht nach neuer Namensgeberei in den ,,Mikrospecies/, der Verwirrung in neueren Namen, ja überhaupt der Diseordanz zwischen Untersuchungen und Benennungen (vergl. Vorwort S. LXXXII), welche so viel riehtiges enthált, vergleicht mit der unendlichen Arbeit, die er sich aufgeladen hat zu soleh? dürftigem Zweck, einer historischen ,,Gerechtig- keit, anstatt dem wirkliehen Bedürfniss unserer heutigen Naturforsehung zu dienen. Die vielen Versuche, welche auftauchen, um die Nomenclatur-Abweichungen der Praxis zu be- seitigen, sie scheinen überhaupt anzuzeigen, dass die Zeit eines einheitlich starren Nomen- elatur-Gefüges verschwunden ist, hauptsüchlieh aber wegen der inneren Schwierigkeiten in Bezug auf den Gattungs- und Artbegriff mit deren Subordinationen. Die Freiheit, die syste- matischen Forschungen in ein leichteres Gewand zu kleiden, als es die binüre Nomenclatur der Species gewührt, ist ein Bedürfniss, aber eine neue passende Form dafür hat sich noch nicht gefunden. Ganz unpassend aber ist die alte Form dann, wenn sie die Autoren-Citate nur historisch anstatt sachlich behandelt wissen will; dann hóren dieselben auf, sachlich ent- sprechende Quellennachweise zu sein. Gegenüber den von Otto Kuntze als heilig ange- nommenen historischen Principien fasse ich selbst also die Wünsche in Bezug auf eine ein- heitliche Behandlung der Nomenelatur, welche sich in den Dienst der Forschung stellen soll, kurz so zusammen, dass die Auswahl der Namen so conservativ wie móglich im Anschluss an ültere oder neuere Quellenwerke zu erhalten ist, dass aber an Stelle der (historischen) ersten Autoren der Benennungen dann, wenn Verbesserungen oder überhaupt Umünderungen gegen deren Sinn vorgenommen sind, die Emendatoren citirt werden, um zu bezeichnen, welche
sind. Unter reformirenden Autoren kónnen doch nur solche verstanden werden, die irgend einen Mangel oder Fehler in der Gattungs- oder Species - Diagnose abstellen; sollte es diesen gestattet sein, an Stelle des Namens desjenigen Autors, der die Gattung begründete, nun ihren eigenen zu setzen? Sollte Jemand be- rechtigt sein, z. B. an Stelle einer von Linné wohl begründeten Primulaceen- Gattung, deren bisher bekannte Arten sámmtlich Stamina inclusa besitzen, statt Linné's seinen eigenen Namen als Autor anzuführen, oder gar eine neue Gat- tungsbenennung vorzunehmen, wenn er plótzlich eine Art dieser Gattung auffindet, die auffülliger Weise stamina exserta zeigt? Durchaus nicht! Eine derartige Entdeckung würde doch nur eine Abánderung der betreffenden Diagnose zur Folge haben, aber nicht eine dureh Vernaehlüssigung des ursprünglichen Autors
CLXIV
Bedeutung dem einzelnen botanischen Namen beigelegt werden soll. SE eat Px il ADDE süchlich auf die Monographieen; bei kurzen Florenwerken, Katalogen nies br aie e gar keine Quellenstudien dieser Art angestellt worden sind, würde der engste T € iier Werke von anerkanntem Ruf genügen. Als beste Quellen empfehlen sic m ; iesem Falle Nomenclatur-Register wie von Pfeiffer, Durand, Nymans Conspectus Florae europaeae u. &., welche in kritischer Auswahl eine Geschichte der Nomenclatur von Gattungen und Arten nebst deren Synonymik überliefern und die sorgfáltig ausgeführten monographischen Studien mit im Allgemeinen gerechter Kritik wiedergeben, sich also auf den Standpunkt des herrsehenden Zustandes und Bedürfnisses stellen. Solche Werke aber, welche wie Kuntze's ,Rhevisio* den Anschluss an das Bestehende zerstóren und , ohne sachliche systematische Neuforsechungen, das historische Princip zum Grund ihrer Umwiülzungen machen, mógen nicht ausgeschrieben, sondern von den Monographen vorsichtig benutzt werden, da nur diese aus dem in solehen Arbeiten aufgehüuften Arbeitsmaterial mancherlei Hinweise und Anregungen
empfangen werden.
December 1891. Prof. Dr. R, von Wettstein in Oesterreichische Botanische
Zeitschrift Seite 418/9 über meine Revisio gen. plant.:
Das vorliegende Werk verfolgt zwei Zwecke: Erstens bringt es die Bearbeitung der vom Verfasser in den Jahren 1874—1876 auf einer Weltreise gesammelten Pflanzen. In dieser Hinsieht enthàlt es die Beschreibungen zahlreicher neuer Arten und werthvolle Angaben be- Züglieh der geographischen Verbreitung bekannter Arten. — Weitaus wichtiger ist der zweite Zweck des Werkes, nümlich der einer einheitlichen, auf dem Prioritütsprineipe basirenden Nomenelatur der Gattungen. Es ist bekannt, welch grosses Hinderniss für ein Gedeihen mehrerer botanischer Richtungen, besonders aber der systematischen, die ungleiche und zu- meist durchaus irrationelle Behandlung der Nomenclaturfragen bereitet. Ebenso kann unter allen Botanikern, die Gelegenheit haben, solehen Fragen nahe zu kommen, auch kein Zweifel mehr darüber herrsehen, dass nur dureh eine consequente Anwendung des Prioritátsprincipes eine allen Anforderungen entsprechende und — dies halte ich für das wichtigste — eine end- lichedefinitive Lósung der Nomenclaturfragen gefunden werden kann. Schade nur, dass durch Uneiniskeit in einigen mit dieser Frage zusammenhüngenden Punkten, speciell in Bezug auf die Behandlung von Arten, die den Gattungsnamen wechseln, sowie durch die Bequemlichkeit mancher Collegen die Herstellung einer einheitlichen "Nomenclatur so sehr verzógert wird. Umso grósser ist der Werth eines Unternehmens, wie des fertig vorliegenden Buches, welches
bedingte Sehmálerung der Verdienste des letzteren, wie sie Drude (l. c. p. 303, 304) dureh Nichtanerkennung des Namens Nwunnezharia R. & P. statt Chamaoe- dorea W. begeht.*
Hier móchte ich einschalten, dass J. Müller arg. dieses Drude unklar vor- schwebende Verfahren, den emendirenden Autor in erster Reihe zu citiren, schon einmal praetisch eingeführt hatte, aber damit beim Pariser Congress 1867 ab- gefallen ist; die bósen Folgen eines solchen Verfahrens habe ich in meiner Rev. gen. plant. p. 610 angedeutet. "Taubert führt l. e. weiter, gegen Drude zu opponiren: ,,Dass den seit Linné's Gen. et spec. plant. eingebürgerten Namen eim so grosser Vorzug zukomme, dass Bezeichnungen, die vor jenen die Prioritàt haben, einzig und allein des lieben Usus wegen vernachlüssigt werden sollen, ist eine nicht zu billigende Sentenz Drude's. Ebenso sind die Gründe, die er dafür anführt, dass die Namen im Anschluss an Quellenwerke zu üblen sind, keineswegs zugkráftigp. Denn ganz abgesehen von der Frage, was man unter Quellenwerken zu verstehen hat, sind diese z. B. die ülteren "Bünde der Flora brasiliensis, Bentham-Hooker's Genera plantarum, Nyman's Conspectus ete. auch in Bezug auf Nomencelatur so voller Fehler und Unriehtigkeiten, dass es eben nur aus ,Bequemlichkeit* geschehen kónnte, diese zum. Nachtheile der Wissen- schaft als für die Nomenclatur massgebend hinzustellen. Dass Drude ferner bei den Benennungen engen Anschluss an die Monographieen wünscht, ist ganz correct, nur darf man nicht vergessen, dass auch die Monographen sich den
Prioritütsgesetzen zu fügen und durcha i illlcárl: : us nieht willkürl ir i Ó einflusst Namen zu geben haben. ürlich oder irgendwie be
TEE INE NIE Me rr EVA NEN GE umo ELT
CLXV
die Aufgabe, soweit dies derzeit einem Menschen móglich ist, bezüglich der Gattungen lóst. Wie gross die dureh frühere Boteniker verursachte Verwirrung der Nomenelatur war, mag daraus entnommen werden, dass nicht weniger als 1074 Gattungen ihren Namen ündern mussten. Mag auch dieses Ergebniss für den Moment erschrecken, so be- ruhigt andererseits die Erwügung, dass diese Reform einmal durchgeführt werden musste und dasssie umso weniger fühlbar wird, je rascher sie sich vollzieht. — Bei der grossen Zahl dieser Aenderungen drüngt sich die Frage auf, ob nicht doeh ein Theil derselben háütte vermieden werden kónnen. Ich móchte diese Frage bejahen. Gewiss hütte sich die Zahl der veründerten Gattungsnamen geringer gestellt, wenn (in Folge einer in die Nomenclaturgesetze aufzunehmenden Bestimmung) in solehen Fàüllen von einer Wiederherstellung der àülteren Namen abgesehen worden wáre, wenn der Autor selbst den Namen ünderte und eine Verwirrung der Nomenclatur dureh ein Belassen der jüngeren Namen nieht zu befürchten war. Ferner hütte der Aehnliechkeit der Gattungsnamen in vielen Fállen ein grósserer Spielraum gelassen werden kónnen. — In der Einleitung bespricht der
Verfasser seinen Standpunkt. Nieht unerwühnt darf bleiben, dass das werthvolle Werk nicht weniger als 109 monographische Revisionen ganzer Pflanzengruppen enthàlt.
24. Decbr. 1891. W. B. Hemsley in ,,Nature* p. 169—172:
Botanical Nomenclature. Revisio Generum Plantarum von Dr. Otto Kuntze.
The importance of this subject is so great, and the alterations made in this book so re- volutionary (although the author pretends to be guided by *5nternational rules"), that a brief sketch of the recent history of plant- naming is desirable in order to render any €eritieisms of the work generally intelligible; aud it is all the more called for because Dr. Kuntze specially attaeks the position taken up by a considerable section of English botanists.
From the time of the foundation by Lin- naeus of the binominal system of nomenclature, which cannot be said to have been consum- mated before the publication of the first edition of the *'Species Plantarum" in 1753, down to within the last 25 or 380 years, matters proeeeded with tolerable smoothness, though some influential botanists did not seruple to ignore the published names of their contem- poraries, or alter them on the most trivial grounds; and there was almost universal laxity in citing authorities. But the more critical investigation of the European flora especially, and to some extent also, perhaps, the ten- dency to multiply species, led to a more thorough examination of the literature, resul- ting in the discovery that the same genus or Species had often been deseribed and named by more than one writer, the names being usually different. Furthermore the limitation of many of the genera founded by Linnaeus and others was greatly modified, some by nar- rower cireumseription, others by amplification, according to the opinions and inclinations of the writers; and of course it frequently hap- pened that different writers dealt with the same materials independently of, and unknown to, each other. Some of these new genera and species were described or proposed in publieations of merely local cireulation, and
Febr. 1892. James Britten im Journal of Botany British p. 53—54:
The plea ot Convenience.
Mr. Hemsley contributes to Nature of Dec. 24th, under the guise of a review of Dr. Kuntze's new book, an elaborate defence of the principles (or want of them) on which "the Kew botanists" have been guided in questions of nomenclature. On former oceca- sions our comments on Mr. Hemsley's articles have been refused insertion by the Editor of Nature, so we propose here very briefly to refer to his main contention.
The advantages attending the adoption of the DeCandollean laws are manifest. Starting from a definite date,—that at which the bi- nominal system was inaugurated,—and gover- ned by certain defined principles, it is at any rate possible to arrive at finality, so long as these principles are adhered to. If the publi- cation of Linnzus's Genera Plantarum (1737) be taken as the starting-point for genera, and of his Species Plantarum (1753) for species, we know exactly the limits of our researches into the past. Whether the binominal em- ployed by the author who first placed the plant in the genus in which it is now retained, or the oldest specifie name, must in every case be recognised, does not affect the present ques- tion, and need not now be entered upon.
To the definite course of action which these prineiples imply, Mr. Hemsley, as spokesman for "the Kew botanists," opposes the plea of convenienee. "The idea of giving agardener... one of these resuscitated generie names with a specifie name tacked on to it by a person who has done nothing else except put his initials to it istoo absurd." It is not so absurd as it is to suppose that the average gardener knows or cares whose "initials" are put to the name; but this by the way. *AIll the literature con- nected with the plant is under another name, all the figures likewise, and, one might add,
CLXVI
were overlooked by the majority of botanists, and others seem to have been purposely neglected; so that in many instances the cur- rent and commonly accepted names were of more recent publieation than those of other authors. As there appeared to be no way out of the practice of citing the author of a given combination of generic and specific names, it followed that the only fair procedure would be to adopt the name and give credit to the man who first published a change generally accepted; because the presumption was that it was always possible, and usually probable, that the later author was aware of the earlier publieation. If an author published later than another, his names must be relegated to the synonymy. This is all very well in theory, and is not so very difficult to put into prac- tice, so far as recent writers are concerned, once we have proved the identity of plants under different names; but when we come to the older writers, all sorts of doubts and ambiguities arise, and it seems much better to retain generic and specifie names that are as well established as a thing can be in the uncertainties of the relative rank of vegetable organisms. "The struggle of literary botanists to bring the law of priority into operation has, as will presently be shown, resulted in Suecessive changes in nomenclature, each one carrying his investigations a little further than his predecessors, and extending the backward limit of authority for the establishment of genera and species, until the whole thing has drifted into a lamentable and undignified race between persons who deal in dates, and are even prepared to make all sorts of evasions of ordinary rules in order to gratify their eraze for reviving old names.
It is hardly necessary to say that these successive changes, apart from the great diver- gencies as to the limitations of genera and species, have a most deterrent effect on the progress of the study of systematie botany, and make it ridieulous in the eyes of persons who regard a name as merely a means to an end.
In 1867 a Botanical Congress was held in Paris, to which botanists of all countries had been invited, and the most important sub- ject diseussed "was botanical nomenclature. Mr. A. de Candolle had drawn up a most carefully considered code of rules to govern botanists in their writings; and this code was submitted to the assemblage of botanists, each rule being formulated and modified as the majority deemed wise. Finally, the whole was printed and ecireulated. The fundamental principle of these laws was priority of publi- cation with adequate descriptions, and untor- tunately it was made retrospective, without any sufficiently defined statute of limitations. For reasons of their own, the Kew botanists took no part in the proceedings of this Con-
all the persons almost who know anything about the plant know it by the old name." This all seems very sad; but how does it differ from what .follows when some well. known plant is transferred by "the Kew bota- nists" to another genus, for botanieal reasons?
To take an example, the plants known in gardens as Glovrinia are placed by Bentham and Hooker under Sínningia. Most of "the literature connected with the plants is under another name, allthe figures likewise, and all the persons almost wbo know anything about the plants know them by the old name." "The idea," therefore, to «continue quoting from Mr. Hemsley, *of giving a gardener a resuscitated generie name"—for Stuningia dates from. 1825—*' is too absurd,"— or if not, why not?
Do *the Kew botanists" follow one system for ''the botanieal nomenelature current in gardens" (for which, according to Mr. Hems- ley, they are "almost exclusively responsible" !) and another for "the vast named ocollections at Kew" (the naming of which, by the way, in the living plants leaves something to be desired)? If so, how does this tend to con- venience? If not, why is it more inconvenient to change a name for literary than for scien- lifie reasons?
Mr. Hemsley allows his feelings to run away with him when he says that *we are asked to sacrifice everything that belongs to the present for the sake of a 'principle that involves endless confusion." Every change causes some confusion; but the sooner it is made, the less will the confusion be. If Ben- tham and Hooker, for instance, had adopted the earlier name Trichosporum for Aeschyn- anthus, they would have been followed by Mr. C. B. Clarke, and at least half the species- would have at once received their proper namé: now, so soon as anyone chooses to re- name them, the names under which they are published must become synonyms. As to the causing of confusion,— of unnecessary con- fusion, moreover,—''the Kew botanists" can hardly plead exemption from that charge. Mr. Hemsley must surely have forgotten the wonderful Kew seed-list for 1885, a notice of which appeared in this Journal for June, 1886: one would like to know what the gardeners and others "interested in vegetable produets" thought of *Delphinium Monsieur Viola Hort.," and the large number of similar names whieh the lise contained.
Mr. Hemsley quotes with approval Mr. Bentham's dietum that it would be "mere pedantry, highly inconvenient to botanists, and So far detrimental to science, now to substitute Fibichia for Cynodon, or Sieglingia for T'riodia." Yet both of these are adopted in the las& two issues of the London Cata- logue, and Sieglingia appears in two local floras; and, as far às one ean judge, *nobody
DEM E T TL TP NEENS RON SER NITPER S QW RW BR EURO MR TRENT E UN EC prr PLN
EL. 345 7 0 Cm oe do
gress; whether wisely or not it would be dif- fieult to determine, and fruitless to discuss. Of eourse, their position was open to comment and eritieism, which have not been wanting; and Dr. Kuntze, while expressing his admira- tion of the amount and quality of the work done at Kew, deplores the fact that little regard has been paid to remote and obseure priorities. So far he isfair enough ; but when he imputes unworthy motives to Bentham, he commits a great mistake, and does grievous injustiee to the memory of a man, whose sole aim was to advance botanieal science, and especially that branch to which he had de- voted his life, and which is most intimately bound up with nomenclature. No doubt the authors of the *Genera Plantarum" failed to take up a large number of published generic names; and not being bound down by the law of priority 2), they were not always con- sistent, even from the point of view of ex- pedieney and convenience, as the surviving author would readily admit. But to suggest that they would not conform strictly to the rule of priority because they would have to undo much of their own work is as disin- genuous as it is untrue. The first volume of the *Genera Plantarum'/ was not completed till 1867, the *Flora Australiensis' was less than half done, and the «Flora of British India* was not commenced; so that, if the authors had had a longing for change and cheap notoriety, they might have re-named a third of the flowering plants of the world. But their idea was to maintain genera and species, as they had been gradually built up, under eurrent names. "The opinion of the late Mr. Bentham on this point is clear from the fol- lowing passage (Journ. Linn. Soc. xix., p. 19) in his ,, Notes on the Gramineae* — the last of the natural orders elaborated for the ,, Genera Plantarum*: —
?) Why not? I never have read any explanation or protest from Kew in that line The law of priority is self-evident, because it is a matter of justice to every honest man; the Paris Congress gave but a codification to in- ferior secondary cases to the law of priority. If Kew botanists did not do justice to other botanists and neglect every day the rights of others, they ean not claim to be judged likes in- nocents. I referred in my book to a number of cases to evidence the disor- derly, unjust and very incomplete no- menclature of Bentham and Hooker's genera plantarum.
CLXVII
seems one penny the worse. If Dr. Kuntze *"jmputes unworthy motives to Bentham," be merits Mr. Hemsley's reproof; but it is no- torious that the literary side of the Genera is far less satisfactory than the scientifie, and it is to be regretted that one or other of the illustrious authors did not devote more atten- tion to this part of the work.
It appears to us that the time has come for a new Conference on Nomenclature, from whieh *the Kew botanists" would not, as on a previous occasion, ostentatiously hold aloof, and at which the views of Dr. Britton and Prof. Greene would be represented, as well as those of Dr. Otto Kuntze, and those more rational ones of which Mr. B. D. Jackson is the exponent. Failing this, 4t scems to us that the DeCandollean Laws?) should be followed. One thing, however, is certain:— whatever standard of nomenclature may ulti- mately prevail, the illogicaland unphi- losophical basis advocated by Mr. Hemsley eannot be accepted, even tentatively, nor even though *the Kew bota- nists" give it their powerful support. The adoption of convenience as a principle is entirely unjustifable, and must delay the bringing about of that finality which we all desiderate.
15. August 1892. Rev. Professor Edward L. Greene in his "Pittonia" p. 264—268:
Dr. Kunize and his reviewers. The more than eleven hundred learned pages upon plant naming which Dr. Otto Kuntze gave to the world seven months ago, we look upon as the most important contribution that has been made to the literature of this subject in the whole history of Botany.
This, I think, is a more favorable view of the merits of the work than any I have met with in the several reviews of it which I have read. Indeed the greater part of them have seemed almost wholly depreciative of these elaborate and very remarkable volumes.
While not finding myself at agreement with Dr. Kuntze in every particular, I am
?) It would be better to say Paris Code instead of DeCandollean Laws; for after the corrections baving been made by the Committee of Congress and after the bills having been modified and passed by Congress, the Laws are no longer DeCandolle's, so that even DC. had then no more the right to upset $8, as he did wrongly.
CLX VIII
*Much has been done, however, for the | | by him on matters of nomenclature are both
elucidation of the order in local Floras. Al- ready at the close of the last century and the
into general cireulation, and were overlooked
by Beauvois, Persoon, Willdenow, and other |
systematists. Several of the same genera have since been re established, but under other names which have now been so long and so universally adopted, that they must be con- sidered as having acquired a right of pre- scription to overrule the strict laws of prio- rity. It would indeed be mere pedantry, highly inconvenient to botanists, and so far detrimental to science, now to substitute DBlumenbachia tor Sorghum, Fibichia for Cyno- don, Santia for Polypogon, or Sieglingia for Triodia.^
It is idle to argue that two or three per- sons have no right to make laws; for any eorporation, however small, has that right, and is justified in exercising it if it has the power to carry them into effect. But, after
all, the main question is, whether the Kew |
botanists aeted in the interest of science in declining to be guided by the rules passed by another body of botanists; and I think any unprejudieed outsider would agree that they did, and that the course events have taken has strengthened their position.
It should be remembered that most of the advocates of priority, and especially those advocates of almost unqualified priority, such as Dr. Kuntze, have no responsibility beyond literary aeeuracy, and even that cannot be maintained for such uneertain quantities as orders, genera, and species of plants. On the other hand, the botanists of Kew have grave responsibilities towards the general publie. It is not too much to say that Kew is almost exclusively responsible for the botanical nomen- clature eurrent in gardens, and in English and colonial literature dealing with plants or the produets of plants, to say nothing of the vast named collections at Kew. The labour of renaming the plants in aecordance with the investigations of successive reformers would have been as nothing to the folly of doing $0, though it would have been a hereulean task, and a recurring task, as each older name was disinterred. "The idea of giving à gardener, or a manufaeturer, or any per- son interested in vegetable produets, one of these resuscitated generie names with à specifie name tacked on to it by a person who has done nothing else except put his initials to it, is too absurd. AI] the litera- ture connected with the plant is under another name, all the figures likewise, and, one might add, all the persons almost who know anything
eonfident that some of the positions assumed
excellent and easily defensible; and I am as
commeneement of the present one, several | confident that at least a very large proportion
continental botanists proposed new genera for | anomalous European grasses; but these were | published in works which entered but little |
of his new combinations, which men have so generally reprobated, will have to be accepted as the only valid names for the plants desig- nated. I am therefore resolved to write a number of paragraphs in defense of the work, taking up as my line of aetion that of ans- wering some of the points made, or thought to have been made by some of the reviewers. I seem invited to this course by the fact that more than one of the crities in Europe have taken occasion, under this caption, to animad- vert upon some of my own views and methods in nomenclature; which was of course quite in place, inasmuch as I have sometimes stood in representation of principles espoused by Dr. Kuntze, and have advocated even a more radical treatment than his of the whole sub- ject of the scientifie naming of plants.
It would be impossible, within due limits, to go through the entire category of adverse comments passed on Dr. Kuntze's work wit- hin the last half year; and I am minded to take up only a few points in a few ot the earlier and more extended reviews.
Mr. Hemsley begins his paper by a virtual denial of the existence of an international code such as that upon the authority of which Dr. Kuntze believes himself to have been warranted in the taking up and carrying on of his work. I do not purpose taking up any defense of the Laws of the Paris Congress of 1867 as of international binding force. Most botanists respect these laws as international, and claim to be working under the guidance of them more or less attentively and serupulously; but we are not at this point to find fault with the Kew botanists, whom Mr. Hemsley represents. Seeing they declined to take part in the congress which adopted the Laws of Nomenelature, I rather admire the consistency with which they adhere to the stand they took af the time of the congress. It is small
folk, not great, who can not afford to be consistent.
In order that his ecritieisms of Dr. Kuntze should be intelligible, Mr. Hemsley thought it desirable to give *a brief sketch of the recent history of plant naming." His attempt to sketch such history, from 1753 down to the present can hardly be called successful, I venture to think. To say that from 1758, when the first edition of the Species Plan- tarum was published, *down to within the last twenty-five or thirty years, matters pro- ceeded with tolerable smoothness," is a pro- position which, to any one af all conservant with the history of the period embraced, will seem a surprising one to have been enuncia- ted from so celebrated a seat of botanical
T
CC hec AC e Ue rto ran
CLXIX
about the plant, know it by the old name. | learning as Kew. I can not even briefly ans-
Yet, forsooth, we are asked to sacrifice every- thing that belongs to the present for the sake of a ''prineiple" that involves endless con- fusion, and feeds the vanity of the living more than it honours the dead. Of course priority in eurrent work is a totally different thing; but if it had been the intention of the pro- moters of the new *Index to Plant Names", on whieh Mr. Daydon Jaekson and his assi- stants have been engaged for some ten years, to restore these old generie names, and enu- merate the species thereunder, it would now be necessary to cite some 30,000 of them as the eombinations of O. K. (Dr. Kuntze). It is no disparagement to the literary researches of Dr. Kuntze to say that Mr. Jackson was in a position to do this infinitely better than Kuntze, if it had been desirable to do it. Dut it was never a part of the plan that the com- piler should reduce synonymy, and amend tho nomenclature of plants. His task has been to prepare an index, and as such its value
will far exeeed any attempts at finality in
synonymy. 'To have proceeded on the lines of Steudel would have only resulted in the addition of many thousands of names devoid of all authority. Nevertheless, Dr. Kuntze, being so impressed with the importance of his precious names, declares that the index will have no scientifie value unless it include the 30,000 specifie names appropriated by *'*O. K." without more labour than a mere transfer?) Dr. Kuntze worked at Kew for several years, and enjoyed the usual pri- vileges of the establishment, and the excep- tional privilege of consulting the index in question; and he now very magnanimously dedicates a genus to the compiler, and patro-
?) Mr. Hemsley underrates that work of nomenclature, in which he has no experience; for hetakes always the ,,most convenient names, as he said once frivolously to me. Other botanists judge otherwise thereon; for instance the editors of The Botanical Gazette wrote: *It is vastly easier as a rule to determine and describe a new species than to settle on the oldest proper name of a plant 'The Kew botanists neglected the time-killing researches of priority and could spare thereby most of their time to describe more genera and new species. Most of other criticisers, even opponents acknowledged the enor- mous labour I have spent in my work.
wer Mr. Hemsley at this point without ad- verting to another very distinctly marked epoch, and a very great one too, in the history of plant naming. It is an era of less than fifty years! duration, but it is absolutely the only period in the history of plant naming in whieh matters proceeded with anything like smoothness. I refer to the splendid epoch whieh opened with 'Tournefort in 1694 and closed with Linnaeus in 1735. It was an era which gave great things and great names to botanieal science; first of all, a method of defining, delimiting and naturally arranging genera; and it was a time when botany at- traeted to itself the learning and the mental aeumen of the ablest men of the day. Botani- eal exploration went on at a good rate both at home and abroad, and both new and elab- orate local floras, and volumes of new genera and new species were put forth in rapid sue- cession by men like Ray, Tournefort, Plumier, Vaillant, Dillenius, Boerhaave, Micheli, Haller, and many men of less note, though of sound learning and much force. These represent a time when men, partieularly scholars, had a lively sense of justice, botanists universally respected the law of priority in nomenclature, and kept the law serupulously. "This was a period concerning which no man could write what Mr. Hemsley writes of the Linnaean epoch, that *some influential botanists did not seruple to ignore the published names of their eontemporaries, or alter them upon the most trivial grounds; and there was almost uni- versal laxity in citing authorities."
Now I wish to ask if this passage of Mr. Hemsley—good enough as descriptive of the times of the Linnaean supremacy—-is at aJl eongruous with that in which he represents matters as proceeding with tolerable smooth- ness? In his printed column they are the two parts of one sentence. At a time when men in the highest botanieal station had no literary or scientific moral sense, and being themselves of mediocre abilities in many cases, made up in part their own deficiencies by robbing of their genera and species men of talent in humbler station—at such a time our friend regards affairs botanical as gliding along smoothly enough.
The history of botany, in what we may eall modern times, runs back through full four centuries. The happiest, smoothest period of its history, and at the same time an active and progressive one, was that intervening bet- ween the appearing of Tournefort's *Elemens? (1694) and Linnaeus' 'Systema? (1735). "The most disturbed and contentious of all epochs — one not yet very near its end, we fear— was that inaugurated by Linnaeus. Not one harmonious decade has this period known. The transition from the Tonnefortian quiet to
CLXX
nizingly tells him he hopes he will take proper | the Linnaean turmoil was abrupt. Linnaeus, advantage of the researches and superior wis- | in the guise of a reformer, doubtless meaning dom of the author 4). | to advance science, and meaning well at first,
The extent to which these changes have | nevertheless almost outraged the feelings of been made may be gathered from the author's | the best men of his time when he. rejected own summary, in which he states that he has | so large a proportion of those generic names reduced 151 genera; separated off 6 genera; | which had been either ereated or adopted by re-named 122 genera, because they bore names | the founder of scientific genera, Tournefort, homonymous with other genera; restored 952 | or by that man's already revered pupils and genera in accordance with the laws of prio- | other contemporaries. Nor was the plea of rity; and re-named upwards of 30,000 species | the exceeding inconvenience of all ad changes belonging to these genera! How he justifies | omitted. The ery of "confusion," and the these changes may be learnt from a few ex- | outery against Linnaeus as fhe author of it, amples, selected to illustrate the various exira- | appears fully to have equalled what we hear ordinary deviees employed by a writer who | nowadays against Dr. Kuntze, and the *Neo- professes to be animated by a sincere desire | Americans." The cry of "confusion" ceased, to reform and consolidate botanieal nomen- | after a time, though the confusion itself did celature. We may waive for the moment an- | hot. Strong protests against that extensive other phase of the question — how far ean | alteration of generie nomemclature of which botanists accept these identifieations, even if | Linnaeus was the author continued to be made they are prepared to accept the principle? | long after the publications of Siegesbeck, Astragalus, a genus of more than a thousand | Moehring, Ludwig and Heister; and the right species, is to be superseded by T'ragacantha, | of Tournefortian names to stand in place of because the latter name was published by | their Linnaean substitutes was insisted on— Linnaeus in his earlier erude *Systema" (1735), | more or less of them being restored in their though in his revised and improved work | books—by Adanson (1763), Crantz (1760), he preferred and employed the former. Kuntze | Philip Miller (1768), Seopoli (1772), Lamarck says, in fact, that no author can be permitted | (1778), Gaertner (1788) and Moench (1794). to revoke any previously published name of | All these gave more or less emphatie disap- his own making, any more than those of | proval of the general course of matters in another person; and aecordingly he transfers | nomenclature, by reinstating pre- Linnaean page after page of names from .Astragalus to | genera and generie names, and giving the Tragaeantha, with the appended authority, | promise to yield even to the principle of ^O. K." Other familiar large genera treated | priority if its advocates «succeed in populari- in the same way are: Erica, which becomes | zing their ideas of 'fright' and justice! in the FEricodes, on an even less tenable ground; | matter. I am glad that at Kew they write Pelargoniwm hasto cede to Geraniospermum; | so cautionsly, and that Mr. Hemsley put those and Clematis receives an additional syllable, | two words in quotation marks; otherwise, and in future we must say Clematitis. Re- | worthy men right have seemed to express an cent authors have eombined ZAododendron | unwillingness to have anything to do in the and .4zalea under the former, but Kuntze | work of establishing right and justice in their now gives them all names under the latter. | sphere, though willing to enjoy the peaceable Proceeding to examples of more far-fetched | fruits thereof, when perchance at some future
changes, it may be noted that Cleistanthus day, these shall be ready to be gathered. is to be Kaluhaburunghos, though it was only
the other day that Dr. Trimen discovered that a plant in Herrmann's herbarium, bearing this name, whieh was taken up by Linnaeus in his "Flora Zeylaniea", was the same as Cleistanthus acwminatus. Dr. Trimen also iden- tified Gaedawakka as of the same origin with Chaetocarpus, therefore Kuntze restores the former. Another excuse for ehanging names is the existence of two of the same derivation. Thus Glaucium cannot be tolerated by the side of Glaur, and Kuntze takes the oppor- tunity of dedieating the genus to his "dear sister Mary and her husband Franz Mosen- thin", and we get the new name JMosenthinia. Some other names of the same derivation are sufficiently. distinet to avoid confusion, yet Kuntze says they must be treated as homo- nyms. To tbis category belong Hydrothrix and Hydrotriche ; consequently the former is re-named Hookerina, though a JHookera exists and is accepted by our author, who also invents a Sirhookera! Failing any of the foregoing reasons, an old name may be. modified to con-
^) I consulted that index only for determining
names to my collected plants, making no use of that inde began to have inscribed the y Nomenclator.
and giving specific X since Mr. Jackson ears" dates for the several genera from Pfeiffer's
CWMÁ — c w-—
-
CLXXI
form to modern rules, and then replace a eurrent name. For example, Katouísjeroe goes through this process, and is issued as Catutsjeron, otherwise Holigarna. In the same way -Anil becomes mila, and supplants Zndigofera; Caju is lengthened to Cajum, and super- sedes Pongamía; and Kauken to Kaukenia, swallowing up Mimusops. A still more exasperat- ing kind of change is the transfer of a familiar generie name to some other familiar genus; such as .Armeria to Statice. It may be mentioned in passing that the Pluwmb«ginaceae have fared badly at the hands of this wholesale reformer. 4Acantholimon is referred to Armeria- strum; .Armeria to Statice; Vogelia to Dyerophyton, O. K. Limoniastrum to Limonioides, altered by O. K. to Limoniodes,
Lovers of orehids will probably be long before they adopt the numerous changes effec- ted in the generie naues of their favourites. Dendrobiwm is superseded by Callista, Eria by .Pinalia, Saecolabiwm by Gastrochilus, Bulbophyllum and Cirrhopetalum by Phyllor- chis, Pleurothallis by Humboldtia, and Angraecum by .Angorchis — the last by mistake, it would seem, for JAngraecuwm is really older than the substitute. Why Epidendrwm does not fall is not explained; for as now limited it does not contain one of the species of Lin- naeus's original .Epidendrum: and I believe that Vanilla would have to be named Epi- dendrum on the principle adopted by Kuntze.
There is another confusing element in these changes. Dr. Kuntze reinstates a number of Aublet's negleeted or previously unreeognized genera, with modified spellings. In this way Cowmarouna and Tounatea become Cumaruna and Tunatea, giving them a widely distant position in an index. On the other hand, Dr. Taubert has recently adopted the original spellings, and appropriated all the species, so that each species is now saddled with at least three names, in order that justice should be done to Aublet, who described one Species of each genus!
But Dr. Kuntze is not the only person who believes, — and econscientiously, I am eonvineed — that botanieal nomenclature ean only be established on a firm basis by abso- lute adherence to the rule of priority. As an instance of the extremes to which some of the American reformers and «champions of priority and fixity go, I may refer to the writings of Prof. E. L. Greene, With regard to the authorship of species, he contends (Pit- tonia, i. p. 183) "that according to an acknowledged general principle which governs men, or ought to govern them, in all literary work, whether scientifie or general", any bi- nominals now in use in the same form that they happen to oceur in pre-Linnaean works, such as those of Ray, Bock, Dodoens, Fuchs, and others, should be credited in all modern books, not to Linnaeus, but to such of these sixteenth century authors who first employed the combinations; and he enumerates fortyeight examples taken from Ray's *Catalogus Plantarum irea Cantabrigiam nascentium." This, not because these authors had any idea of a binominal nomenclature, but because the ordinary diagnostical phrase of the period happened to be reduced to two words. Of course, if we admit species on this ground, we cannot logically date the genera later; and the same writer (*Flora Franciscana") carries out the same prineiple for genera, and aseribes Lupinus to Catullus, Linum to Virgil, Euphorbia to Pliny, and .Amygdalus to "Theophrastus!
In a more recent article (Pittonia, ii. p. 185), Prof. Greene proposes new names for a number of what he terms *revertible generic names?" —— that is, names which have at some period been applied to some other plants than those for which they are now current, no maíter how remote the chance of revivals. On this principle he supersedes Pickeringia, Nutt., Nuttallia, Torr. and Gr., Darlingtonia, Torr., Crantzia, Nutt, Torreya, Arnott, and others; and, as he asserts, with great regret.
One might go on multiplying instances of these unnecessary changes, but it would only be wearisome. Stil, I may give one or two examples of repeated changes, and we are not sure that we are at the end. Sir Ferdinand Mueller, the eminent Australian botanist, reduced Candollea Labil. to Hibbertia (Dilleniaeeae), and replaced Stylidium by Candol- lea, whilst Marlea, in Cornaceae, was replaced by the older name for the same genus, Stylidium. Kuntze now discovers that Karangolum is an older name for Marlea, therefore he reinstates Stylidiwm for the plants generally known under that name, and Candollea of Dilleniaceae is relegated back; though in the meantime another compiler had invented the name Eeldea for it, in spite of its having been reduced to Hibbertia. One more in- stance: Nymphaea and Nuphar are names familiar in their applieation to à large num- ber of persons outside of botanical cireles, and there was no objeetion to them until re- cently, when Mr. J. Britten found that Nuphar ought to be Nymphaea, and the latter Casta- lia, and he believed he had reached finality in the matter; but Kuntze now says that Castalia must fall, because the name Leuconymphaea was employed by Ludwig in 1737. And so these changes go on.
On the whole, I think it will be admitted that the Kew botanists have exercised a wise discretion in employing current and familiar names in preference io these uncertain and
CLXXI
ivals ; x sav that the same poliey will be pursued in the immediate fu- xig age tai tutor, ic sueceed in ey Prin their ideas .of "right" and *'$u- slice" in the matter, then, no doubt, Kew would follow, and not unwillingly. :
There are endless diffieulties in the way of taking up genera anterior to the first. edi- tion of Linnaeus's *'Species Plantarum", and it seems only rational and consistent that binominal nomenclature should be based upon the foundation of the system, and upon Lin- naeus's completed work, rather than upon his, or other authors', earlier imperfect works, It is no breach of confidenee to say that Mr. Daydon Jackson, who ,has been fen years engaged on Darwin's "Index to Plant Names", has come to the conclusion that any attempt to adopt genera of an earlier date will lead to hopeless confusion, to say nothing of in-
i 5 2 i here x: some genuine cases of priority that one would rather not admit, because there is no advantage gained by them and much confusion is caused, inasmuch as one change often involves several others, and the re-naming of large genera. According to the strict law. Pimelea should be DBanksia, and so Kuntze re-nàmes the latter Sirmuellera. :
It remains for botanists, who really write for the publie, to decide whether, in a gene- ral way, it is no better to employ current names ; beeause it is perfectly ridiculous to vapour about the "scientific? value of names. We might as well attempt to purify the Eng- lish language. All we want is to know what plant is designated by a given name, and that is no easy matter, apart from other complications. :
Sinee the foregoing was written, I have seen an article (Botanical Gazette, Novem- ber 1891, p. 318) by Mr. E. L. Rand, on *Nomenelature from ihe Practical Standpoint/ in whieh he recommends the course followed by the Kew botanists, without any reference to them, however, or to Dr. Kuntze, whose work could not have reached America at that time 6).
Januar 1892. Dr. Ernst Huth in seiner Zeitschrift ,,Helios* S. 85 —89: Kuntzes Reform der botanischen Nomenelatur. Auf dem Congrés inter- nationale de Botanique in Paris 1867 wurde man nach langen Debatten über eine Anzahl von Regeln einig, die für alle Systematiker als Norm in der botanischen Nomenclatur gelten sollten. Leider haben Zaghaftigkeit, Unkenntniss, Bequemlichkeit und, besonders bei den Englündern, auch ein gewisser Dünkel, viele Botaniker bisher gehindert, streng nach den Regeln des ge- nannten Congresses die Pflanzenarten zu benennen. O. Kuntze hat nun in einem sehr umfang- reichen Bande nicht nur eine Reihe von Ergünzungsvorschlügen zu jenen Regeln gemacht, sondern auch mit ungeheurem Fleisse die Anwendung derselben auf die nach diesen Grund- sützen allein gültigen Genus-Namen durchgeführt. Um aber zu verstehen, welch! Stück Arbeit in diesem Unternehmen liegt, wird ein historischer Rückblick nóthig sein.
Der erste Botaniker, der den Gattungsbegriff ganz im modernen Sinne auffasste, vielfach auch sehon spüter die von Linné streng durehgeführte binüàre Nomenclatur anwandte, und der seine Genera in Gruppen zu einem Systeme vereinigte, das vielfach schon an die modernen Pflanzensysteme erinnert, ist Rivinus, der 1690 sein grosses Werk ,jIntroductio generalis in rem herbariam' herauszugeben begann. Wáre dieses gross angelegte Werk, das dureh die Kostspieligkeit seiner zahlreichen Folio-Kupfertafeln den Autor finanziell ruinirte, beendet :
?) Mr. Jackson cannot work in the manner as he intended formerly to do; he intended, as he wrote once in the Journal of Botany, to begin with 1735 as starting-point for the genera and to follow the only sound principle of prio- rity. Formerly he worked under a committee chosen by Darwin : Jos. Hooker, Asa Gray, John Ball. The last one was an opponent to the ,,famous* Kew rule. But since the death of Asa Gray and John Ball no substitutes have been ehosen, and now Sir Joseph Hooker has the whole responsability as to the wrong completion of that Index of Plant Names, having been paid by Dar- win with the order to prepare a work like $Steudel's Nomenclator.
If the Kew botanists pretend now to begin with 1753, because an earlier date would lead —- as they think — to hopeless confusion, they prove only that they are very badly acquainted with the books of Linnaeus and his contemporaries; for the starting point of 1753 produces more confusion and much more alterations of names than the starting point of 1737; see 8 20 of my book. "This new proposition of Kew botanists is a very inept one.
?) Why did Mr. Hemsley not speak of the other contents of my work? A review, that mentions only the pretented bad side, is unjust.
——————— C
Se trien pp n
snnmeme teat
— Ó—
AINBESS GM netten s nei n ERN e np
—————A
CLXXIII
worden, so würde man sicher gut thun, bei der Namengebung für die Genera bis auf Rivinus, also bis auf das Jahr 1690 zurückzugehen. Da aber sein Werk ganz unvollstüindig blieb und viele seiner Tafeln erst nach seinem Tode ohne Text veróffentlieht wurden, so würden sich vielleicht Tournefort's ,,Institutiones rei herbariae*^ auch dadurch als Ausgangspunkt empfehlen, weil sie gerade im Jahre 1700 erschienen sind. Leider sind aber seine Genera-Diagnosen un- brauchbar und ohne die erlüuternden Tafeln nieht verstündlich, auch seine Arten oft kritiklos unter Gattungen angebracht, deren Gattungscharaktere für sie nicht passen. Kuntze empfiehlt daher, auch Tournefort nicht zum Ausgangspunkt zu nehmen, sondern Linné und zwar dessen Systema naturae, editio princeps vom Jahre 1735 für die Namen der Genera, wührend die erste Ausgabe seiner Species Plantarum vom Jahre 1753 der starting point für die Namen- gebung der Arten bleibt. Man wird die Festsetzung dieser zwei Jahresdaten gewiss als die richtige begrüssen, wenn man die eingehenden sachliehen Erórterungen Kuntze's über Für und Wider, die wir hier leider nicht im Einzelnen wiedergeben kónnen, ohne Voreingenommenheit durehliest, besonders wichtig scheint aber auch ein mehr praktiseher Grund zu sein. In Kew, dem Vororte englischer Botanik, ist seit neun Jahren ein ,,Kew Index of Plant Names* in Vor- bereitung, der von Jaekson unter Hooker's Oberleitung ausgearbeitet wird und der für unsere Zeit mindestens das zu werden verspricht, was Steudel's Nomenclator botanieus für die Mitte unseres Jahrhunderts war, und dieser ,,Kew Index/ wird ebenfalls die Jahre 1735 und 1753 als Ausgangspunkte für die Namen der Genera bez..der Species nehmen, mit Kuntze's Nomen- clatur also im Wesentlichen übereinstimmen müssen.
Nachdem diese Ausgangspunkte fest gewühlt sind, beginnt nun Kuntze die Anwendung der internationalen Regeln auf die Namen der Genera und wer die vielfachen bei consequenter Durchführung nothwendigen Aenderungen im einzelnen verfolgt, wird herzlich froh sein, dass nieht bis auf Tournefort oder wie einige Autoren gar wünschen bis auf J. Bauhin, Ray oder Morison zurückgegangen ist, weil dann die Revolution eine kaum absehbare geworden wáre. ,Es ist ja richtig, sagt Kuntze, ,,dass mit einem solchen Wechsel der Namen viel Unbe- quemlichkeit, wenigstens in erster Zeit, verbunden ist. Manche werden es mir nachtragen, dass ich ihnen dies verursachte; aber ich bin doch nicht für die Sünden der Vüter verant- wortlich.^ Und wahrlieh ,Sünden* der Vorfahren liegen genug vor, leider in erster Linie bei Linné selbst. Dass Linné übertrieben ehrgeizig war, muss selbst ein Linné-Schwürmer, wie sein Biograph Gistel, zugestehen, aber er trieb die Eitelkeit bis zur Ungerechtigkeit gegen die, welche sieh nicht blind seiner Autokratie fügen wollten, und wurde gerade hier- dureh Veranlassung zu vielfacher Verwirrung in der Nomenelatur. Wer sich der von ihm eingeführten Systematik und Nomenelatur nicht fügen wollte, der wurde am liebsten todt- geschwiegen, oder seine Pflanzennamen willkürlich durch neue ersetzt oder, um die Verwirrung voll zu machen, zu Quernamen d. h. in ganz anderem Sinne, als der Autor gewollt hatte, für andere Pflanzen benutzt. Ein Beispiel soleher ,,Maassregelung/ sieh nicht fügen wollender- Collegen móge hier genügen. Bei J. Burmann, dem Director des Hortus medieus in Amster- dam, hatte Linné, der in sehr bescheidenen Verhültnissen studirt hatte, Stellung gefunden. Kein Wunder also, dass ihn Linné in der Vorrede zu seiner »,Flora zeyloniea/ in über- sehwenglicher Weise lobte; als aber Burmann spüter nicht geneigt war, die Linné'sche Nomen- clatur anzunehmen, begann Linné's Groll sich in der oben geáusserten Weise Luft zu machen und diesen Hass übertrug er sogar auf Werke anderer Autoren, die von Burmann heraus- gegeben wurden. Rumpf's Riesenwerk, dessen Herausgabe von Burmann 1742— 55 besorgt wurde, und das Linné in seiner Flora zeyloniea gerechterweise einige hundert Mal hátte citiren sollen, wird von ihm im ganzen 4 (! Mal erwühnt und alle von Rumpf gewühlten Namen für gut charakterisirte Genera durch andere Namen ersetzt. Die Gattung Catappa Rumpf nahm Linné 1767 erst an, nachdem Adanson 1769 die damit identische Rheede'sche Gattung Adamarum wieder hergestellt hatte; aber Linnéó verwarf beide Namen wieder und wüáühlte einen dritten Terminalia, leider einen solehen, den Rumpf in der etwas anderen Form, Termi- nalis, für eine ganz andere Gattung vorher aufgestellt hatte. Dass bei solcher engherzigen Willkürherrschaft Linnés auch für den heutigen Systematiker grosse Missstüinde entstehen mussten, ist klar. Auch die Linné-Sonne hat ihre Flecken und wer deren mehr beobachten will, wird in Kuntze's Buch genug finden. Leider hatte aber Linné Schule gemacht; auch Robert Brown, um nur einen zu nennen, der sich àühnliche willkürliche Namensünderungen und Vertauschungen zu Schulden kommen liess, ,war ein grosser Botaniker mit den Allüren «eines Despoten.4 Ja selbst der geniale Bentham ist von einer gewissen hochmüthigen Ver. nachlüssigung der nicht-englischen Litteratur nicht freizusprechen. Sein und Hooker's grosses Werk der Genera plantarum würe ungleich brauchbarer ausgefallen, wenn diese Autoren nicht Pfeiffer's mit unendlichem Fleisse gearbeiteten Nomenclatur botanieus consequent ignorirt hütten.
Kuntze's sehwierige und zeitraubende Arbeit bestand nun darin, die beiden letztgenannten »Standard-works^ mit Durand's Index generum phanerogamorum Gattung für Gattung zu ver- gleiehen und für jede den nach den obigen Principien der Prioritüt allein richtigen. Namen
Kuntze, Rev. gen. S
CLXXIV
festzustellen, Er hàátte vielleicht gut gethan, mit diesen a WP Ae obi Rp d Synonymia botaniea zu collationiren, weil dieses Ww erk bis zum Jahre s EUR n Mee Wenn er beispielsweise pg. XLVII nach Durand 5 Homonyme zu Viranisin aufführt, so würde er durch 'erk ausser einer ungenügend bekannten Crantzia Pohl noch eine siebente
letzteenanntes. W bo Ael à : rais — (Qoringia. Pers. — Conringia Link (Rehb. bei Durand)
Crantzia Lag. — Couringia Heist. — Gorinkia Presl vorgefunden haben. : IA E
Die Hauptsehwierigkeit einer eonsequenten Nomenelatur nach PFrisptwreehten liegt nun darin, dass viele der gesetzlich vorzunehmenden Aenderungen oft eine ganze Reihe von wei- teren Auswechslungen von Namen zu: Folge haben, die wie die Wirkungen eines Schachzuges sich weiter fortpflanzen und dass daher Niemand zu einer Abünderung berechtigt ist, der die- selbe nieht bis zur letzten ihrer Consequenzen verfolgt hat. Dazu gehórt aber neben Zeit und gutem Willen auch gute Kenntniss der Litteratur und eine ausserordentliech grosse Bibliothek. Sum d dd
Hoffen wir, dass die Herausgeber des ,, Kew Index* ihr ins Auge gefasstes Ziel wirklieh consequent durehführen; sie würden allen botanisehen Systematikern einen grossen Dienst er- weisen. An Kuntze hat es gewiss nicht gelegen, wenn das von ihnen geplante Werk den Erwartungen nicht entsprechen sollte, denn er hat ihnen nicht nur mit Aufopferung vorge- arbeitet, sondern ihnen auch in einem besonderen, engliseh geschriebenen Capitel die Quint- essens seiner Ideen vorgetragen.
Erst wenn die Kew-Botaniker sieh entschliessen, consequent mit den übrigen Botanikern hierin Hand in Hand zu gehen, wird eine Einigkeit erzielt werden. Die Hauptsache bei der Nomenclatur bleibt aber meiner Ansieht nach die allgemeine Gültigkeit. Denn dass gerade die von Kuntze oft betonte historische Gerechtigkeit bei den oben erláuterten Principien zu kurz kommen muss, liegt auf der Hand. Hierfür nur ein Beispiel. Als ültesten, nach 1735 angewendeten Namen für Knowltonia Salisb. setzt Kuntze den Burmann'schen Christophoriana ein. Die Sache liegt nun aber so: Letzterer Name bezeichnet bei allen álteren Botanikern unsere noch heut Christophskraut genannte Actaea spicata. Burmann hatte nun.gar nieht die Absicht, ein neues Genus mit diesem Namen zu belegen, sondern, da die Systematik nicht seine stárkste Seite war, stellte er vielmehr, jedenfalls durch die beerenartigen Früchte verleitet, fülschlieh seine neue Pflanze zum jetzigen Genus Aetaea. Und dieses Irrthums wegen, und weil Linné in bedauerlieher Weise den Jahrhunderte alten Namen Christophoriana in Actaea umwandelte, wird nun Burmann Autor einer neuen Gattung!
Doch sei dem, wie ihm wolle; eine bestimmte Norm ist nóthig und wenn durch dieselbe eine allgemein gültige Nomenclatur in der Botanik erzielt wird, so móge es immerhin bei der Namengebung heissen: Fiat consensus omnium, pereat justitia, denn in der richtigen Scháützung auch der vorlinnéischen Botaniker, die hierbei vielfach zu kurz wegkommen, werden bei dem heutzutage immer mehr geltenden Zurückgehen auf die ersten Quellen auch die patres bota- nices ihren gerechten Antheil immer mehr erhalten.
Ferner Dr. Ernst Huth l. c. pag. 94:
O. Kuntze, Revisio generum plantarum. Wir haben Kuntze's Arbeit S. 85 bis 89 einer so eingehenden Besprechung unterzogen, dass wir uns hier auf eine kurze Inhalts- Statistik des über 1000 Seiten starken Bandes beschrünken kónnen. Es sind darin etwa 7000 gesammelte Arten aufgezühlt, dabei 9 neue Genera, 152 neue Arten. Mehrere hundert neuer Varietüten wurden beschrieben, 190 monographische Revisionen von Pflanzengruppen vorge- nommen. Es wurden eingezogen 151 Genera, neu abgetrennt 6 Genera, neu benannt wegen Homonymie 122 Genera, mit rechtmüssigen ülteren Namen versehen 952 Genera; von Arten sind prioritatis causa neu benannt etwa 1000 Arten, partiell neu benannt mit anderen Gat- tungsnamen etwa 30000 Arten, dabei 870 Gefüsskryptogamen, 394 Moose, 2454 Pilze, 89 Flechten und 2285 Algen-Arten. :
Wir glauben Angesichts dieser Statistik gern der Versieherung des Autors, dass ihm die
Herstellung dieses Werkes nicht móglich gewesen, wenn er nieht seit Jahren 13—14 Stunden tüglicher Arbeit demselben gewidmet hitte.
Ende Januar oder Anfang Februar 1893. Dr. John Briquet im Botanischen Centralblatt Band 49, S. 106—111:
Zur i V i i » 25 A ischen Nomenclatur der Labiaten. Eine ausführliche Monographie 8 "a'eopsis war gerade druckfertig von mir hergestellt worden, als ich mit Erstaunen in O. Kuntze's Revisio Gen Pl ^opsi durch Ladanu in erum. antarum sah, dass der Name Galeopsis anfgehoben und "m ersetzt worden sei. Bei nüherem Studium der von Kuntze für seine Veründerung gegebenen Gründe wurde ich da; ine übri i | azu veranlasst, seine übrigen, die Labiaten betreffenden nomen-
RSrIE FWreFss ESETPF
D
CLXXV
clatorisehen Vorsehlüge einer Prüfung zu unterwerfen, deren Resultate ieh im Folgenden kurz mittheilen móchte.
Ehe ich aber die Kuntze'sehe Reform für die von mir speciell studirte Familie kritisch beleuchte, will ich drei Punkte erórtern, die dabei von besonderem Belang sind.
1. Dass man für die generisehe Nomenclatur weiter, als Linné nieht zurückgehen soll, wird wohl von den meisten Botanikern zugegeben und ist schon nachdrücklieh von Alph. de Candolle (Nouv. remarques sur la nomenel. p. 14) betont worden. Warum aber sollte man gerade Linné's Systema Naturae ed. 1 (1735) wühlen, anstatt Linné's Genera plantarum ed. 1 (1737), welehes letztere Werk von Alph. de Candolle (l. c.) als Anfangspunkt der generischen Nomenclatur empfohlen und seitdem von vielen Botanikern als solcher gebraucht worden ist? Die Gründe, die von Kuntze dafür angegeben werden, sind keineswegs stichhaltig. Erstens ist nieht zu verkennen, dass eine ganze Reihe von Namen des Systema I, trotz aller gegen- seitigen Angaben, reine nomina nuda 8) sind. Die Behauptung Kuntze's (l. c. p. LXXIDI: »Die in Sehlüssel- bez. Tabellenform gegebenen Namen entbehren nicht der Beschreibung, wie Manche meinen, deun die Unterbringung in die einzelnen Classen und Ordnungen involvirt allein einen ziemliehen Theil der Besehreibung'! — wird wohl Niemand im Ernste nehmen. Es klingt das etwa so, wie wenn man z. B. sagte, Nügeli und Peter hátten ihre zahllosen Hieracien-Sippen beschrieben, wenn die Autoren denselben blos Namen gegeben und dann hinzugefügt hütten, sie gehórten in die Gattung Hieracium. Die involvirte Besehreibung ist nur eine Classen- und Ordnungen-Charakteristik, keineswegs aber eine generische, und somit sind die Gattungen nicht beschrieben 9).
*?) *) Error Candolleanus. Nomina nuda sind solche, die keine Be- schreibung oder Aequivalente dafür erhielten, aus denen man die damit gemeinte Pflanzenart bez. das Genus recognosciren kann. Ist eine Pflanze schon einmal beschrieben, so citirt man den Autor und braucht die Diagnose nicht zu wieder- holen; wenn ein Pflanzenname sonst gut bekannt und nieht streitig ist, kann auch das Autoreitat fortfallen. Die Beschreibung war in Systema I gar nicht nóthig, weil Linné zu den allermeisten Gattungen 1735 deren Autoren citirte. Unter den 767 Gattungen, die Linné 1735 aufführt, befinden sich nur etwa 40 nomina nuda, deren Beschreibung spáter erfolgte. Diese 40 Namen kommen erst für spüter in Betracht und bieten keinen Anlass zu irgendwelchen Diffe- renzen. Briquet stellt sich, wenn auch in Uebereinstimmung mit der fehlerhaften Veründerung, welche A. DC. in Remarques nouvelles 1883 vornahm, die Genera plantarum erst als Ausgangspunkt für Genera zu nehmen, direet in Wider- spruch zu $ 15 des Pariser Codex, welcher vorschreibt, dass die áültesten von Linné adoptirten oder gegebenen Namen giltig sein sollen. Der ursprüngliche Text von DC. des 8 15 lautete: Chaque groupe naturel de végétaux ne peut porter dans la science qu'une seule désignation valable savoir: la premiére qui lui ait été donné, en botanique, par Linné ou depuis Linné . . . Dafür ist gesetzt worden nach dem Congressbeschluss, welcher betreff $8 15 ein Com- promiss mit Tournefortianern war: . . savoir: la plus ancienne, adoptée par Linné, ou donnée par lui ou aprés lui ... Also es sind zwei Verschürfungen durch den Congress angenommen worden: 1. dass auch von Linné ad optirte Namen gelten sollen, was also eine Recognition der Gattung aus den Schriften des Autors des betreffenden adoptirten Namens involvirt; 9. dass der ülteste Linnéisehe Name gelten soll Der altersehwache A. DC., welcher Herrn Dr. jriquet suggestirte, hat offenbar beides vergessen gehabt, als er 1883 in Remarques nouvelles gegen die Beschlüsse des Congresses handelte und anstatt 1735 mit adoptirten Namen nur 17377 mit jüngeren Namen für neu diagnosticirte Gattungen gelten lassen wollte; die Beschreibung war, wie vorstehend bemerkt, gar nieht nóthig. Auf dem Pariser Congress 1867 wollten viele Theilnehmer mit Tournefort die Nomenelatur beginnen lassen; es wurde schliesslich. ein Compromiss geschlossen, nicht über Linné hinauszugehen. Da nun der Congress kein Linnéisches Werk ausgeschlossen hat, so versteht es sich juridisch von
II*
CLXXVI
Ausserdem fragt es sieh sehr, ob wirklieh, wie es Kuntze (Il. e. p. LXXII) angibt, in Svstcema I. Linné nieht blos sein System, sondern auch seine Nomenclatur für Gattungsnamen hat begründen wollen. Ich neige zur entgegengesetzten Ansicht 10); für mieh stellt Systema I vielmehr ein blosses System dar; die in die Classen, Ordnungen ete, untergebrachten Namen sind nur da, um zu zeigen, aus welehen von den früheren Autoren beschriebenen Gruppen diese Classen, Ordnungen ete. bestehen, ohne dass dadurch der Autor entscheiden wollte, ob die genannten Gruppen Gattungen, und ob diese alle zu behalten oder zum Theile zu streichen seien. Kurz, Genera hat Linné da nicht aufstellen wollen, sondern nur Classen und Unter- abtheilungen derselben.
Ich will diesen Satz an einem Beispiel erláutern. In derselben Reihe von Systema I stehen. Galeopsis und. Ladanum (D.). Kuntze macht nun Hypothesen, um die Bedeutung des Wortes Galeopsis aufzuklüren und betrachtet es willkürlich als auf dieser Gattung (in jetziger Auffassung) nicht mehr angehórigen Arten sich beziehend (l. e. p. 521). Das Natürlichste scheint mir aber, anzunehmen, dass Linné's Galeopsis von 1735 gleich ist seiner Galeopsis von 1737. Dass Linné die Synonymie mit Ladanum.(D.) nicht nüher angibt, kommt einfach daher, dass er eben nicht Gattungen mit ihrer Charakteristik und Synonymie hat begründen wollen, sondern nur eine Auswahl von bekannten Namen aus den Werken seiner Vorgünger zusammen- gestellt hat, um dem Leser eine Idee von dem Inhalte seiner Classen, Ordnungen etc. zu geben.
Dass meine Deutung sehwerlich beweisbar würe, gebe ich zu, aber für ebenso móglich als die Kuntze'sche halte ich sie. Die Hauptsache ist, dass man Systema I zu verwerfen hat, weil es durch seine zahlreichen nomina nuda, ebenso wie die Flora lapponiea, keinen Anspruch darauf machen kann, als Baustein der generischen Nomenclatur betrachtet zu werden. Die Gattungen fangen also mit Linné's Genera plantarum ed. 1 (1737) an.
Ieh füge hinzu, dass Alph. de Candolle, mit dem ieh die Frage eingehend und zu mehreren Malen besprochen habe, vollstindig der hier ausgesprochenen Ansicht ist. Andere hervorragende Systematiker (z. B. Engler und Müller arg.) sind auch mit mir darüber einig, dass Genera ed. 1, als Grundlage der Species plantarum, den Anfangspunkt der gene- rischen Nomenelatur darstellt.
9. Die Genera müssen als solche beschrieben sein (Lois de la nomencl. art. 46) 11). Auf dieses von Kuntze bei Namen von P. Browne, Rumphius ete. nieht, streng angewandte Prineip werden wir unten zurückzukommen haben.
selbst, dass mit seinem 1. Werk also 1735 angefangen werden muss, Das war eben nur ein Gewaltaet von A. DC. dass er 1737 statt dessen annahm.
19) Linné hat thatsáchlich seine Nomenclatur in Systema I begründet; von abweichenden Ansichten und Zweifeln darf nicht die Rede sein, ausser bei Leuten, die nicht wissen, worin die Reform der Linnéischen Nomenclatur be- stand. Die wesentlichsten Punkte sind folgende: Abschaffung der generischen Doppelwórter, der zu langen Wüórter, der Worter mit griechischen Prüfixen und Suffixen, der für mehrere Genera giltigen Homonyme; diese Principien sind in Systema I schon durchgeführt.
! Error Briquetianus. ,Die Genera müssen als solehe beschrieben sein (Lois $ 46).* Diese Sentenz beruht auf Missverstándniss und ist falsch. In 8 42 waren schon vorher beschreibungslose neue Genera und Arten auf Ab- bildungen und nach verküuflichen Herbarien unter gewissen Bedingungen er- laubt. S 46 lautet: ,Eine in einem Werke unter generischen und specifischen Namen, aber ohne Mittheilungen (renseignement im franzósischen, information im englischen Text) über ihren Charakter angeführte neue Art kann nicht als publieirt betrachtet werden. ^ Ebenso verhált es sich. mit einem neuen nieht characterisirten Genus**.
Es wird also nur Charaeterisirung durch Mittheilungen (renseignement, information) verlangt; das kann aber auch dureh Nennung von Artennamen bestehen als Typen eines Genus. In dem grundlegenden Entwurf zum Pariser Codex hatte DC. letzteren Fall ausgeschlossen, aber der Congress hat diese strengere Fassung beseitigt. Der Passus des ursprünglichen Entwurfes des 8 46 lautete: Une espéce annoncée dans un ouvrage sous des noms générique et spécifique, mais sans aucun renseignement, ne peut étre consideróe comme publióe, Il en est de méme d'un genre annoncé sans aucun indication, ,p9*
X
WAV
L3
iN
yn
AX Xwek tSt
CLXXVII
3. Haben zwei Namen dasselbe Alter, so steht dem Autor die Wahl frei (l. c. art. 55). Diese Regel ist klar und bis neulich immer augewandt worden; ieh sehe nicht ein, warum man die eomplieirten, von Kuntze im Ersatze dieses Artikels vorgeschlagenen Sütze, die doch auch willkürliceh sind, annehmen sollte, Wozu nützt denn ein einheirlieches Verfahren in der Wahl der Namen? Hauptsache ist, dass eine Wahl getroffen werde, eine Regulirung der- selben scheint weder nóthig noch nützlieh. Der ganze ,,Buda- vel T'ssa-Streit hütte ver- mieden werden kónnen, wenn man sich einig und genau au den Text der Nomenclaturregeln gehalten hátte 2).
méme en disant de quelles espéces d'un genre ou le compose*. Also darnach war die Aufstellung von Genera durch Typennennung verboten, der Congress hat jedoch das Verbot gestrichen. Zur Anerkennung eines Gattungs- oder Artennamens genügt also nur, wie ich es viel kürzer und prüciser sagte, die sichere Recognition, sei es durch Bild, Pflanze oder Text oder Synonym.
Zu den Gattungsnamen und Artennamen, die zur Giltigkeit keiner Be- schreibung bedürfen, gehóren auch solche, die dureh Synonyme characterisirt sind. Wenn Jemand ein Homonym für giltige Genera oder Arten aufstellte, z. B.
-Holbóllia Hk. ,Wall.* 1831 non Wall. 1824 — Lopholepis Dene. JDelastria DC. 1844 non Tul. 1843 — Labramia DC. JDillwynta Roth 1806 non Sm. 1805 — fothia Pers. -Barklayella Sacc. 1892 non Barclayella Diet. 1891. — Neobarclaya Saec. Larmannia R. Br. 1810 non Forst. 1776 — JBartlingia F. v. M. Gymnodiscus Zuk. 1887 non Less. 1881 — Zukalina OK. Cladothriz Cohn 1875 non Moqu. 1819 — QCohnidonum OK.,
so darf dies ein Jeder, der es zuerst bemerkt, durch andere Namengebung cor- rigiren, ohne die Diagnose zu wiederholen; wie es auch in obigen Fállen die Autoren der nachstehenden Ersatznamen gethan haben; es genügt die einfache Citation des Synonym. Ebenso wenn Jemand einen Speciesnamen in ein anderes
Genus versetzt oder mit einem anderen Gattungsnamen verbindet (Species trans- lata) z. B.:
Holboellia ornithocephala Hk. — Lopholepis ornithocephala Dene. Delastria Bojeri DC. — Labramia DBojeri Buek. Dillwynia. trifoliata Roth — JRothia trifoli«ta Pers. DBarklayella primaria und flagellifera Sacc. — Neobarclaya prim. und flag. OK. Larmannia squarrosa. Lindl. — Barllingia squarrosa F. v. M. Gymnodiscus neglecta. Zukal — Zukalina neglecta OK. Cladothric dichotomum Cohn — Cohnidonum dichotomum OK.
Solehe anerkannte Ersatznamen existirten schon vor Erscheinen meiner Rev. gen. pl. zu Tausenden. Diese neuen Namen bezeichne ich als nomina semi- nuda substituenda; sie werden dureh Synonyme charakterisirt und es ist eben- sowenig nothwendig, die Beschreibung zu wiederholen, als bei irgend einem anderen Genus oder einer Species, zu der man als Aequivalent für die Beschrei- bung das Autorcitat giebt.
Ich habe diese Nomina seminuda unter 8 46, wo über Giltigkeit neuer Arten- und Gattungsnamen nur gehandelt wird, rubricirt und Niemand wird die Giltigkeit soleher Namen bezweifeln kónnen; aber es wird besser sein, den 8 46 durch folgenden Zusatz klarer zu stellen: ,eNeue Namen auf Synonyme basirt, werden durch letztere characterisirt.*
7?| Der weitverbreitete und ebenso heftg wie andauernd geführte Tissa- Buda-Streit, der noch keineswegs beendet ist, beweist auch nur, dass $ 55 Schlusssatz streitip ist und deshalb auf Grund des 8 4 des Pariser Codex einer Neuregelung bedurfte. ^ Ausserdem verursachen Prioritátsentscheidungen aus
CLXXVIII
Bemerken will ich noeh, dass ich principiell. mit Kuntze's strenger Beobachtung des Prioritütsgesetzes einverstanden bin?) und auch mit ihm meine, dass ,Bequemlichkeit kein stichhaltiger Grund** ist (l. e. p. LXIV). Wenn es aber gilt, alJgemein bekannte Gattungen, die sehr artenreich sind, umzuiaufen, so wird man verlangen dürfen, dass eine ungewóhnliche Strenge bei der Anwendung der Nomencelaturregeln stattfinde, damit der Verwirrung nicht leichtfertig alle Thüren geóffnet werden. uber E
1. Agastache Clayton ex Gronovius, Flora virginica, p. 88 (1762) -— Lophanthus Adanson (1763). — Die Beschreibung ist sehr schlecht, schlechter noch, als die Adanson sche. Man kann die gemeinte Gattung aber doch erkennen, besonders wenn man sein Augenmerk auf die in Virginien wachsenden Labiaten beschrünkt. Der Autor hat auch da wirklich eine Gattung begründen wollen, denn er sagt: ,,Species plantae praecedentis (Betonicae) sed novum genus censeo". Die Kuntze'sche Reform ist somit begründet.
2. Ajuga L., Gen. ed. 1 (1787). — Dieser Name bleibt, wührend das von Kuntze bevor- zugte Bulga (1735) mit dem Systema zu verwerfen ist13). :
3. Alguelagwm Adanson, Familles des plantes. II, p. 505 (1765) — Phytozis Molino ex Sprengel (1825) — Sphacele Bentham (1829). — Die Beschreibung Adanson's, die noch vom Citat des Werkes von Feuillée unterstüizt ist (cfr. Feuillée, Journal des observations physiques, t. III. pl. I et Hist. des pl. médieinales, No. 4. 175) ist klar, somit ist die von Kuntze vorgeschlagene Reform anzunehmen.
4. Amethystea L. (1747). — Der Amman'sche Name .Amethystina, der von Kuntze dem Linnéschen bevorzugt wird, kommt nieht in Betracht, da Ainman die Gattung nicht beschreibt, sondern nur von der Pflanze sagt: ,,4methystina montana, crecta, foliis exiguis digitatis, trifidis, serratis, floseulis cum coma in caeruleo: janthinis Messersehm.'/ Dieser Charakteristik von Messerschmid fügt Amman gar keine Gattungs-Merkmale bei, und glaubt selbst etwas Grosses gethan zu haben, indem er von Messerschmid sagt: ,,Praeter nomen et quod ad Classem quartam Inst. r. h. pertineat, apud auctorem nil exstat*. Nach diesen rudi- mentüren Angaben, die auf allerlei Pflanzen passen kónnen, bleibt für mich die Amman'sche Gattung in ihrer Original-Beschreibung vóllig unklar, und behalte ich die Linné'sehe Be- zeichnung bei. (Cfr. Amman, Stirpium rariorum in imperio rutheno ete., p. 54. 1739)14).
b. JBasilicum Moench, Meth. hort. et agri Marb. suppl, p. 143 (1802) — .Moschosma Reichenbaeh (1828). — Die Diagnose, die Moench (l. c.) gibt, ist klar und deutlich; die von Kuntze vorgeschlagene Aenderung ist also ganz gerechtfertigt.
spüteren Publieationen anderer Autoren Complicationen ohne Ende; sie sind einer Contradietio in adjecto zu vergleichen und principiell abzuweisen; cfr. Rev. gen. plant. pag. CLV.
In dem Fall Tissa-Duda stehe ich mit dem unveründerten $ 55 übrigens gar nieht in Widerspruch; er betrifft meine Ergünzung zu $8 55 sub 1. Da- gegen betrifft sub 2 die Regulation einer Lücke im Pariser Codex, welche etwa 8000 Veránderungen von Speciesnamen erspart; es scheint mir demnach doch wohl eine solehe Regelung der Namen trotz Herrn Briquet sehr nóthig und nützlich zu sein.
en Wird abgelehnt, weil Systema I wie nachgewiesen giltig bleibt; dem- nach sind überhaupt von den Briquet'schen Verwerfungen abzuweisen:
Ajuga 1737 — DBulga 1135 Satureja 193€ — Clinopodium. 1135 Nepeta 1*3? — Glechoma 1135 Molucella 1781 — Molueca 1935 j . Galeopsis 1331 — Ladanum 1335. Die Galeopsis von 1735 ist, wie auch der beste Linné- Kenner H. E.
Richter im Codex Linnaeanus angiebt, auf eine andere Pfl wahrscheinlich S/ac/iys-
Opsis bezeichneten.
^) Herr Briquet hat übersehen, 1742 Amethyslea behandelt hat.
à : anze zu beziehen, oder Lamiumn-Art, die frühere Autoren auch mit (Gale-
x dass ausser Amman 1739 auch Haller inné eitirt selber Hall. act 3. 17429 p. 51 Fi 1, Di Kd à : wm 0 PE * D d E ceras de Gattung war also sicher, ehe Linné 1747 durch LU TUNE: H assow die Gattung frevelhaft im Namen veründern liess.
EN Y£. H ay
) Cfr. Briquet, Les Labices des Alpes maritimes, p. XV — XVII.
CLXXIX
6. Clinopodiwum L. (1737). — Kuntze, wie auch Scheele und Caruel, verschmilzt unter | diesem Namen die Gattungen Calamintha Moeneh (1792), Satureia L. (1737), Muicromeria Bentham und Clinopodiwum L. (1737). Da dem Autor zwischen Satureia und Clinopodium die Wahl frei steht, so muss man die Gruppe mit Scheele und Caruel Satureia nennen, weil Seheele zuerst diesen letzteren Namen gewühlt hat. Clinopodium (1735) kommt nicht in Er- wügung, weil es im zu verwerfenden Systema I erwühnt wird — Ich habe prineipiell keine Bedenken gegen die von Secheele und Caruel vorgenommene Reduction dieser Satureineen- Gattungen, glaube aber, dass sie verfrüht ist. Eine neue Gattungen-Eintheilung dieser hóchst verwiekelten Labiaten-Gruppe darf sich nur auf eine gewissenhafte vollstindige Monographie aller Arten begründen. Dass dies in Kuntze's Revisio nicht geschehen konnte, liegt auf der Hand, aber gerade deshalb wáre es vielleicht vorsichtiger gewesen, eine solche abzuwarten, ehe man die von Caruel nach dem beschrünkten Maassstab der italienischen Flora angelegten Beobachtungen und vorgeschlagenen Neuerungen ohne Weiteres annehme. Obgleich ich. die Gruppe schon seit lange studire, habe ich die Bentham'sehe Eintheilung in meiner demnüchst 1 zu erscheinenden Bearbeitung der Familie in Engler und Prantl's Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien vorliufig noeh beibehalten; nur muss in Bentham's Nomenclatur Clinopodiwm (1737) statt Calamintha (1799) gesetzt werden.
7. Coleus Loureiro (1790). — Die Gattung muss beibehalten werden. Majana Rumphius (1747) kommt nicht in Betracht. Rumphius hat nàmlich zwei beschreibende Artikel geschrieben, deren einer ,,Majana utraque** und der andere ,,Majana aurca'* betitelt ist. Gattungs-Charaktere I sind keine vorhanden, die lückenhaften Beschreibungen beziehen sich auf Arten und nicht auf die Gattung. Alph. de Candolle betrachtet auch die Namen von Rumphius als ungiltig; Gattungsnamen hat Rumpf wohl aufgestellt, aber nieht Gattungen, man kann sie also eben- falls ,,nomina nuda* nennen. Ein anderer ülterer Name, auf welchen die Herren Ascherson und Schweinfurth voriges Jahr meine Aufmerksamkeit lenkten, ist Zatarhendi Forskal (Fl. aegyptiaeo-arabiea, p. CXV, 1775). Dieser Name ist aber auch als ,nudum" zu betrachten, denn Forskal fasst Ocymum Aegyptiacum, O. villosum, O. vaalae unter dem Namen ,,Zata- rhendi -— novum genus?* ohne jegliche Diagnose zusammen. Weiter im Texte (1. e. p. 109 bis 110) besprieht er ein. Oeymum a) Zatarhendi und ein Oeymum f) Zatarhendi? — aber wiederum ohne eine Gattungen-Charakteristik aufzustellen 15).
8. Galeopsis L. (1737). — Diese Gattung bleibt; der Name Ladanum (1735) ist mit
i Systema I, worin er erwühnt wird, zu verwerfen. c 9. Glechoma L. (1737). — Kuntze will diese Gattung mit MNepeta vereinigt haben (nach LES dem Vorgange Bentham's und Caruel'). Soweit die Untersuchungen von Born und mir sich él erstreckt haben, liess sich. Glechoma von Nepeta anatomisch dureh das Vorhandensein einer : Schutzscheide im Stengel scharf abgrenzen. Zwar spricht sich Kuntze gegen anatomische | Charaktere (l. e. p. LXXVIII) ziemlieh abfüllig aus, als ob diese Merkmale den àusseren ürc Gestaltszügen gegenüber eine besondere Kategorie oder etwas prineipiell Verschiedenes dar- Ia. stellten; da aber der Verfasser weder seine Ansicht durch besondere Untersuchungen unter- "LI stützt, noch irgend welchen Beweis für seine Aeusserungen aufführt, so darf sie einstweilen " als eine rein persónliche Meinung betrachtet werden. Wie es' mit dem Verhültniss von . Glechoma und Nepeta spüter auch sein mag, so wird jedenfalls der Name Nepeta für die p? ganze Gruppe anzuwenden sein, da ihn Bentham gewühlt hat; das Datum 1735 für Glechoma h ist nieht zu beachten, da es dem zu verwerfenden Systema I entnommen ist. P. 10. .Hedyosmos Mitehell in Act. Ac. Leop. Carol. N. VIII. app. 211 seu Ephem. norimb. dd (1748) — Cunila L. (1759 non 1737). — Die Correction Kuntze's ist ganz richtig. Cunila L.
(1737) passt absolut nicht auf unsere jetzige Gattung und besteht aus Arten von Sideritis. Die Besehreibung von Mitehell ist klar und deutlich.
11. Hyptis Jaequin (1786) — Mesosphaerum P. Browne (1756) — Condea Adanson (1763). — Der Name Hyptzs bleibt glücklicherweise!!, denn die Gattung enthált über 250 Arten) Mesosphaerum, welches von Kuntze bevorzugt wird, ist für mieh ein ,,)nomen nudum", womit aueh Alph. de Candolle16) und Müller-zrg. einverstanden sind, weil P. Browne keine
719) Die Rumpf'sehen Gattungsnamen sind Nomina seminuda, die sicher P recognoscirbar und deshalb annehmbar sind; efr. Note 11.
ji 16) Absurditas Benthamiana quoad P. Browne a cl. Candolleo
renovata. Der lücherliche Irrthum, dass Patrick Browne keine Genera, sondern 14 nur Species beschrieben habe, stammt von Bentham, der aber P. Browne's Werk gr. so wenig kannte, dass er ihn für vorlinnéisch hielt; cfr. Rev. gen. pl. p. CXLHI. 7. Bentham nennt z. B. in BHgyp. III 291 Acidoton P. Br. Species potius quam
) genus", aber wenn P. Browne etwa in der Manier von Ehrhart oder Du Petit-
CLXXX
: ; ; : " ei osehrieben hat; es ist die:
Diagnose zu seiner neuen Gattung gegeben, sondern nur ven Art bese regum . da us Qies derselbe Fall, wie bei Majana Rumphius. Was Adanson's Condea betrifft, so beschreibt sie P ) : » i z : . 00v ieillées nur re ihr Autor wie folgt: , Feuilles semblables á celles de la tige; fleurs verticillées, 1 fleur pedi
'eai ice á P é le; eor ivisions presq culée, 2 écailles larges; ealiee á tube court pédieulée; eorolle courte, 5 divisions [ jue
'Thouars oder wie es auch Adanson vorschlug, für Species substantive Namen gegeben hátte, so hátte P. Browne doch jeder Art einen solehen Namen geben müssen, was nicht der Fall ist. Ferner schreibt Bentham le HI 312: Nomen Linnaeanum a Muell. arg. rejicitur ob prioritatem Adeliae Es br, qui vero genus (Forestieram) sub hoe nomine non definivit, etsi species ope iconis suae agno- scenda sit. Das ist aber unrichtig, denn P. Browne giebt ausser der Species- diagnose seine übliche Gattungsdiagnose nach Linnéischer Manier. — Nebenbei ergiebt sich auch, dass Herr Prof. Mueller-arg. seine Meinung (cfr. oben) über P. Browne's Anerkennung geündert hat. Nun zum bestrittenen Labiatennameu. P. Browne beschrieb die Species wie folgt: Mesosphaerum 1. Hirsutum foliis cordatis .serrato subsinuatis floribus verticilliter spicatis. Tab. 18 Fig. 3. Und gab dazu folgende Gattungsdiagnose:
Periantium: — Monophyllum tubulatum, rectum, leviter ampliatum, decem striis notatum; ore subobliquo, quinque setis rigidis terminato.
Corolla: Monopelala fubulata: limbus bilabiatus: labium. superius rectum, bifidum, fauce variegatum ; inferius (ripartitum, patens, collo angustum; laciniis lateralibus ovatis; media minori, reflera, ad apicem compressa carinata.
Stamina: JF'Mlamenta. quatuor, quorum. duo inferiora sunt et longiora luboque floris ad. faucem usque adnata; duo vero superiora, libera et breviora; antherae subrotundae.
Pipillum: Germen. bilobum. oblongum; stylus, bifidus, longitudine stami- num; stigmata acuta.
Pericarpium: Nullum; calir àn sinu semina fovet.
Semina: Duo subcompressa, oblongo-quadrata, sulca longitudinali per mediwm ducta. notata.
Das ist genau dieselbe Schablone, nach weleher Linné in Genera plan- tarum seine Genera beschrieb, nur dass Linné bei Labiaten anstatt Periantium Calyx schrieb und dann noch pleonastisch Perianthium hinterhersetzte. Auch Bentham et Hooker, genera pl. befolgten noch àühnliche Scehablone, nur dass sie anstatt der meist 6 Absütze, wie bei Linné und bei Patr. Browne, alles hintereinander drucken liessen. Dabei sind Browne's Genus-Diagnosen meist ausführlicher als bei Linné.
; Patrick Browne hat auch diese Diagnosen, die er characters nennt, genau
im Linnéisehen Sinne gegeben, wenngleieh er diese Genusdiagnose nieht voran
setzte, sondern meist unter die Art stellte, nach der er die Genusdiagnose in der Natur entworfen hatte.
: Sue diese Absurditát — ich habe dafür keinen milderen Ausdruck — ass Pede nur Species beschrieben habe und seine Gattungsnamen n. nuda seien, schon von Bentham aufgestellt war und von Briquet, Sehumann, Urban cnet 1st, So gebe ich hier einige Citate aus Patr. Browne's Werk, um as Gegen / i j l i ü ed ge theil zu zeigen, obwohl doch schon die gleiche Sehablone für Genus- lagnose bei Linnéó und Browne dies darthut:
en LXX, Vorrede zum botanischen "Theil, schreibt Browne: In this part of the Natural History of Jamaica, I have followed the order and distri-
bution of Linnaeus as e : Annaeus a$ much as possible . I have given the ,general
A o——mMG4n
Lu o Dod
Am SECOS ie Koc Mm m Am A-
-*
Lm -j
hh 25 0 2]
j * j
CLXXXI
égales; é6tamines méídioeres; graines 4, eylindriques longues (Familles des Plantes, p. 50417). Diese Besehreibung erlaubt es nieht, /Typtis eher, als zahlreiche andere Labiaten zu erkennen. Hyptis scoparia Poit, welehes dazu von Kuntze citirt wird, besitzt in jedem Seheinquirl nicht eine Blume, sondern deren 2—10; die übrigen Charaktere kennzeichnen auch Mentheen, Els- holtzieem ete. Zwar sagt Adanson von seiner Pflanze: »Satweia amer. H. R. Par.^, wir wissen aber absolut nieht, ob er darunter dieselbe Pflanze, die spüter Jussieu, Desportes und Poiret studirt oder beschrieben haben, verstanden hat. "Wenn man die Identificirung auf die im Pariser Garten eultivirten Sütze von Satureia Americana gründen wollte, so würe es doch noch gewagt, da Verwechslungen in botanischen Gárten gar zu háüufig sind. Die Adanson'sche Condea ist also zweifelhaft. Somit bleibt Zyptis Jacq. (1786) als definitiver Gattungsname.
characters whereever I found them new, or but imperfectly represented before; . . . . I have also given a short description of most of the species.
Wo Gattungen früher genügend beschrieben waren, füllt es P. Browne gar nicht ein, die Gattungscharaetere zu wiederholen; z. B. um bei den Labiaten zu bleiben und Herrn Briquet zu überzeugen, bei Salvia, Rosmarinus in Classe II und in Classe XIV bei Teucrium, Lavandula, Glecoma, Sideritis, Mentha, Nepeta, Galeopsis, Origanum, Melissa, Scutellaria, Ocymuwum fehlen seine sechstheiligen Geenuscharactere; dagegen hat er bei JMesophaerum eine neue Diagnose geliefert und bei T'hymus und Clinopodiwm die Gattungsdiagnose ergünzt; das that er auch überall da, wo er nieht sicher war, dass die Art in das betreffende Genus gehórte.
Bei Randia 8.143 ergánzt P. Browne die hóchst defecte und unrichtige Diagnose, welche Linné gab, indem er ausdrücklich Lin. gen. citirt und vorher nach seiner Manier die Art kurz beschrieben hatte. Er sagt ausdrücklich dann: Its ,general characters are as follow: Periantium . . ... , Qorola& ... 0. Btámina..... ; Pisullum.. , Periearpium . . . . ., Semina .....; ebenso general characters ete. bei Dianthera S. 118.
Anstatt general characters für Gattungsdiagnose sagt Browne aber auch gelegentlich ,,generie characters** z. B. S. 119 bei Justicia, worauf wiederum diese sechstheilige Schablone folgt, oder er sagt auch wohl botanie charaeters (S. 110, 120, 125, 126) oder oft einfach blos characters; aber dieser Ausdruck bezieht sich niemals auf seine kurzen Speziesdiagnosen, sondern stets auf seine meist sechstheiligen Generadiagnosen.
Patrick Browne àáussert eiaen Gattungsbegriff wie Linné, wenn er auch
seine Diagnosen nachsetzte; bei Chiococca 8. 164 schreibt Browne z. B. nach gegebener Gattungsdiagnose: This ,,genus** has been hitherto confounded with the Tourneforlia, from which I have now justly separated it. Zur zweiten Art dieser neuen Gattung wiederholt er keine Gattungsdiagnose und das hátte er doch thun müssen, wenn die Ansicht Anderer richtig wáre, dass diese sechs- theilligen Diagnosen nur Speciesbeschreibungen seien. Bei seiner neuen Gattung "sychotrophwum, die Liuné lasterhafterweise in Psychotria kürzte, hatte Browne sogar 7 Arten, aber nur eine Gattungsdiagnose. Ein weiteres Beispiel: Auf 8. 217—218 stellt Browne ein neues Genus Samyda mit drei Arten auf und sagt zuletzt: "These species of the Samwuda are frequent in . . . . "The first species has no more than eight filaments in each flower; but the two last always have nine or ten. . . . Demgemüss beschreibt er auch in seiner sechstheiligen Gattungsdiagnose, die er bei der ersten Art gab: Stamina in aliis octo, in aliis novem, in aliis decem. So etwas als eine Speciesbeschreibung aufzufassen, ist doch eine Absurditit. Es wird Zeit, dass dieser Nonsens ausstirbt und man Patrick Browne gerecht wird; vergl. auch Rev. gen. pl. p. XXXIV.
Also Mesophaerwm. P. Br. bleibt gelten und die Einwünde Briquet's sind haltlos. ;Spathe P. Browne, die Prof. Urban in Englers Jahrb. XV 307 als
CLXXXHI
19. Koellia Moeneh. (1794) — .JPyenanthemum und Brachystemum Michaux (1803). — Diese Aenderung Kuntze's ist sehr riehtig, sie wurde schon von Baillon (Histoire des Plantes,
XCVII. p. 51) vorgenommen. ; :
13. Kur:amra Kuntze (1891) — Soliera Clos (1849) non Agardh (1842). — Diese Um- taufung war eine Nothwendigkeit, da die Agardh'sche Benennung die ülteste ist.
14. Molucella L. (1737). —— Dieser Name bleibt; die von Kuntze bevorzugte Benennung Molucca, (1735) dagegen muss mit Systema I, in welchem sie erwühnt wird, verworfen werden.
15. Origanum L. (1737). — Kuntze huldigt der Ansicht Caruel's, nach welcher Thymus und Origanum zu vereinigen sind. Hier gelten nochmals die Bedenken, die ich oben bei Clinopodiwm ausgesprochen habe. Jedenfalls, wenn die zwei Gattungen wirklich spáter ver- einigt werden, so muss die ganze Gruppe T'ymus und nicht Origanwm heissen, weil Kuntze selbst schon im Jahre 1867 den Namen T'hymus dafür gewühlt hat 18).
Unter 15 Namenánderungen, die von Kuntze vorgeschlagen worden sind, sind also 5 begründet 19). Die Aufmerksamkeit auf diese irrthümlichen Benennungen gelenkt zu haben, ist das Verdienst Kuntze's, dessen Aibeit jedenfalls sehr viel Fleiss und Gelehrsamkeit bezeugt.
Genf, 24, December 1891.
n. n. hinstellt, hat eine vollgiltige Gattungsdiagnose, die Linné gar nicht er- weitert hat; Linné ànderte blos unxechtmássig den Namen der Gattung in Spathelia; ebensowenig ist Adelia P. Br. (cfr. Urban l. c. 339) ein n. n, wenn auch Browne nur die mánnliche Pflanze generisch und specifisch be- schreibt und abbildet. Linné dagegen verwendete bósartig den Namen Adelia auf ganz andere Pflanzen. P. Browne verstand sogar im Allgemeinen sehr gute Generadiagnosen zu geben, seine Pflanzenabbildungen hat der berühmte botanische Zeiehner Ehret gefertigt und seine Diagnosen sind besonders werthvoll, weil er sie alle nach lebendem Material fertigte; von seinen neuen Genera gelten — wie ieh spüter zeigen werde; cfr. Note 273 — 62 und es giebt kaum einen zweiten unter allen Botanikern, die mehr als 20 Genera aufstellten, von dem relativ soviel (über 60?/o Genera anerkannt blieben. Linné hat nur sehr wenig von Browne's Pflanzen erhalten kónnen (efr. Rev. gen. XXXV) und seine von Browne übernommenen Gattungen, deren Namen er mehr oder minder ünderte, wesentlich naeh Browne's Werk diagnostirt, oft nur dessen Diagnosen etwas gekürzt. Die Hetzjagd, die neuerdings gegen P. Browne's Werk ver- anstaltet; worden ist, weil ich wenige von dessen Gattungsnamen restaurirte, ist nur eine Erneuerung des Unrechtes, welches Linné gegen P. Browne verübte.
1*) Ieh will hier blos den interessanten Fall festnageln, dass eine Diagnose von 32 Worten ungenügend erscheint, um eine Gattung zu recognosciren.
. ., !*) Betrifft einen Fall laut Note 19. Origanum und Thymus sind stets in dieser Reihenfolge von Linné veróffentlicht, Origamum. hat auch die Species- majoritàt; die Entscheidung von Prioritütsfragen darf logisch nur aus den Quellen stattfinden, also ist. Origamum: zu. bevorzugen.
1?) Weitere fünf Fülle wie in Note 18 gezeigt, sind dureh legale Auf. nahme von Syst. I 1735 wiederherzustellen, ein. Fall (Mesophaerwunm) P. Browne ist dureh einen groben Fehler von A. DC. verursacht; Origamwum. betrifft eine principielle Streitfrage; Majana Rumpf darf als nomen seminudum nicht ver- worfen werden. Bei Ama/hystea hat Dr. Briquet e übersehen. Die Briquet'sche Arbeit ist gebeutet worden, aber mit wenig Kritik; von meinen 15 Namensumánderungen nicht Alguelagum, Basilicum, Kurzamra, Koell worden waren, ist bemerkt worden.
ine ültere bessere Recognition von Gegnern viel gegen mich aus- nieht einmal Briquet's Irrthum, dass blos fünf, sondern sechs: 4 gastache, tà, Hedyosmos von ihm angenommen
strage
AR
A2 INIRE PRHEADINDAEII II Qr
j(————
CLXXXIII
Februar 1892: The Botanical Gazette page 60—62:
Editorial. An International Congress of Botanists is an exceedingly valuable thing, provided it is really what the name implies. If, however, the real botanists, whom we would delight to honor, stay at home, and we have let loose upon us a erowd of quasi-botanists, sueh a elass as is more apt to journey far tocongresses than any other, our lines will not have fallen to us in pleasant places. The men we want to visit us are busy, very busy, and are little given to take such long trips for manifestly cosmetie purposes. It would be a phe- nomenal thing to secure even a fair representation of the realbotauists of Europe. There will be great danger, a danger seen lurking around even so eonservative a body as our Aumerican Association, of confounding a foreign label with one of distinetion. The percentage of smat- terers and eranks is probably as large in other countries as in the United States, and it is well known that such classes travel further and talk more profusely than any other. We will have to show our good judgment, therefore, not in indiseriminate but in proper recognition.
Nothing would so arouse the active interest of American botanists in this venture as an announcement by the local committee that has the affair in charge, of the names of distingui- shed foreign botanists who have signified their intention of being present. American botanists will enthusiastically entertain their foreign brethren, and along with the grain will endure a reasonable amount of chaff;, but they eannot be expected to endure all chaff, It is not to be expected that the perfunetory invitations of the committee will secure all the desired attendance. These invitations must be supplemented by those urgent private ones sent by acquaintances and correspondents, It is the latter kind that really count. "The International Congress will probably be a success if every American botanist& will privately urge the attendance of his foreign friends,
If the Congress becomes really representative, its discussions will carry great weight; and any of its decisions with reference to modes of procedure will probably be recognized. If, how- ever, it proves to be a body whose representative character may well be called in question, no such decisions should be promulgated. More important than the nomenclature questions, whieh, like the poor, we have always with us, are questions of uniform terminology with re- ference to plant struetures, a uniformity that is not so much to avoid confusion of names as confusion of ideas. This will open a vast field of usefulness to the congress, provided always that it is representative, which is to say competent.
Open Lettres. Suggested by Kuntze's *Revisio Generum Plantarum". In recent years many changes of well established names have been made solely to satisfy the law of priority, and not owing to any difference in judgment as to generie or specific rank. In some instances this has been carried so far as to abandon long established and household words for names wholly unknown and often inappropriate, because the latter were published a year earlier, or even not any earlier, but simply on the preceding page of the same book, or still logically, say, in the preceding paragraph or line.
When we have objeeted to calling Nymphaea Castalia, or Carya Hicoría, or Magnolia grandiflora M. foetida, our mouths have been stopped by the law of priority, and our ruffled tempers have been smoothed by the assurance that all of these vexatious changes were 7n the line of stability, that it would take only a few years to get accustomed to calling Jones Brown and Smith Thompson, and after the first little inconvenience and strangeness all would settle down into blissful permanency. The mild suggestion that, owing to the different judgments of men and the zeal of future antiquarians we might be simply opening the floodgates to an increased instability, has generally been received by the innovators with bland incredulity. But, to show how the thing really works, now comes along Kuntze with his tremendous Ze- visio Generum Plantarum, and finds it necessary to make 30,000 changes in specifie names before he ean publish his description of species collected in a journey round the world! Alas, in obedience to the new dietum, or dictator, for he speaks ex cathedra, we must no longer eall Jones Brown, and Smith Thompson, but must hereafter call Jones Daker, and Smith Jenkins. By the irony of fate, we are shown very clearly just how much stability some of the more recent and distressing changes are likely to have. E. g, Nyuphaea becomes Leu- conymphaea (1737) and Castalia is no more. In the same way Carya becomes Scoria (1808) and Hieoria is shelved. Corydalis becomes Capnodes; Dieentra, Capnorchis; Glaucium, Mosen- thina; Lepidium, Nasturtium ; Claytonia, Calandria; lonidium, Caleeolaria, and Caleeolaria something else ; Elatine, Potamopithys ; Oxalis, Acetosella ; Pelargonium, Geraniospermum ; Rhus, Toxieodendron, and so on ad desperandum. Even names which have stood more than 150 years, like Liriodendron Tulipifera and Zea Mays have to be converted into Tulipifera Lirio- dendron and Thalisia Mays to satisfy the ghost of some dead botanist, and the zeal of a live antiquarian.
Old debts become outlawed after a time, and it would simplify matters greatly to apply the same practice to old names. There seems almost no end to the changes a persistent rum-
CLXXXIV
maging of old literature can bring to light, and we may. be certain it "sean end im Kuntze. For one, I most devoutly wish the strict law of priority were a the bottom of the
sea.
i : / 'e mor 1l parehments less. It does seem that it would be better to study nature more anc ] is the proof of a pudding is said to be the eating, and this closely printed book of a thousand
But
; AC PUR pages is eommended tho the digestion of Messieurs the systematists. — Erwin F. Smith,
Washingthon, D. C.
Februar 1892, B. DaydonJackson, Secr. L. &., in Journal of Botany Bri- tish ... p. 57 writes as to my Revisio generum plantarum:
Dr. Kuntze returned from his journey round the world in 1876, and his principal oceupation sinee has been the determination of his plants, altogether about 7000 species, with nine new genera, 152 new species, and several hundred new varieties. PDut, as will be seen from the title-page, this part of the author's work is almost completely lost in the revision of genera and their contained species, which has been elaborated during the period of preparation. 'The remarkable character of this may be understood from his own state: ment, that he has monographically revised 109 genera, sunk 151, renamed 122 on ac- count of their *homonymy,;" changed 952 names to their *legitimate" older ones, with a specific renaming of more than 30,000 plants on these grounds.
These results could only be aítained by a striet adherence to some rule, and that a very peeuliar one; and it must be admitted that the author has been thoroughgoing and relentless in his operations, which we have now briefly to examine, for a full discussion of them would expand this notice to an inordinate length.
In his introduction Dr. Kuntze states his reasons for his procedure, gives his ideas as to numerous alterations in the Laws of Nomen- elature (this section extends to forty-six pages), gives a section in English as to insular errors, and supplies many useful ascertained dates of clashing publieations; all of which it is im- possible here to discuss. Suffice it to Say, that the author takes the date of issue of Linnaeus's first edition of his Systema Naturae, 1735, as his arbitrary starting-point, and thence- forward assigns an equal value to every name that happened to be launched, as being of the same value from a systematic point of view. It follows from this that almost the whole of the work before us is vitiated by the fallaey that the Linnean nomenclature was full and complete in 1735 20). As a matter of fact, that nomenclature did not receive
hotanieal nomenclature already 1735 in his Systema Naturae.
??) Linnaeus applied his rules of |
|! ward
Rev. Prof. Ed-
15. August 1892. | ,Pittonia* 1I
Greene in his p. 268—275:
Mr. Jaekson eritieizes Dr. Kuntze, not as
| do others at Kew, for his vindication of the
principle of priority, but as having taken *the date of issue of Linnaeus! first edition
| of the Systema Naturae, 1735, as his arbitrary | starting-point." But no longer ago than 1887,
Mr. Jaekson himself announced that in his own revising of genera for the Index of Plant Names, he had taken the same work and date as his point from which to reckon priorities. "Our starting point, then", he tells us, *'is
| the publieation of Linnaeus of the Systema
| | ] |
Naturae, 1735" *). "There is a notable diffe- renee between Mr. Jackson's statement of his own ease here, and his statement of that of Dr. Kuntze. He makes the Systema starting- point to have been taken by Dr. Kuntze "arbitrarily", while against his own taking up of the same point of departure he made no such aceusation; and we can but wonder, and wish that we knew what Mr. Jackson's doetrine is, Could he name a starting-point whieh he would not consider arbitrarily cho- sen? He seems to hold the opinion still that there must be a starting-point, and even that 1753 is the proper date. But is this an *ar- bitrary" point of departure, or does he judge it to have been deeided upon by some autho- rity? Would he have blamed Dr. Kuntze, for instance, as taking his starting-point arbitrarily, in ease he had made 1753 his date? What was the chain of cireumstances—the category of experiences, by which Mr. Jackson was induced to relinquish the 1735 date in favor of that of 1753? Did he, after working on that basis for six or seven years**), find the extraordinary amount of bibliographieal re- search entailed by reckoning from the earlier date, an insuperable obstacle to his ever finish- ing the Index of Plant Names? Some sort of
| an explanation—perhaps amounting to an affir-
mative answer of my last question—is given by Mr. Hemsley, as if on Mr. Jackson's behalf, when he says: "It is no breach of confidenee to say that Mr. Davdon Jackson, who has-been engaged ten years on Darwin's Index to Plant Names, has come to the con.
*) Journal of Botany, xxv. 68.
Five years had already been devoted to the work when, in 1887, the *1735" an- nouncement was made,
d SUFEOSPHIHSONT imttpqen napa Len " «
Api soxtqtraeme xem sciet
its completion till 1753, even as regards plants; whilst the zoologists had to wait till the tenth edition of the Systema in 1759. Until then the Linnean plan of arrangemenf, was only one of many rival systems, each struggling for recognition, and not until that date did it assume the present accepted form. This consideration, of course, shuts out works which were drawn up on the old and pre- Linnean lines, sueh as Rumph's Herbariwm -Amboinense, six volumes of which were issued before 1751, and the last volume, which came out in 1755, was uniform with its predecessors. It is needless to argue this at any length; the folly, to use no harsher term, of raking up names given by Moehring, or by Siegesbeck in 1736, before Linnaeus had had an oppor- tunity to fully explain his system, or even to supply the requisite details, needs no en- forcing; the case of Siegesbeck is partieularly gross, he being Linnaeus's most virulent oppo- nent. Probably no fewer than four-fifths of the names here proposed must fall, still-born, from this defiant disregard of accepted usage. Linnaeus did not establish his reforms at a single stroke; on the contrary, he had a very hard battle to fight before he attained his supremaey. The first edition of the Systema was the outline sketeh only, of which some details were filled in when the Genera ap- peared in 1737, and was suecessively worked upon, until, in 1753, the erown?1) was set
?!) Propositio inepta kewen- sis. As Prof. Greene gave already a review of Mr. Jackson's critic, I may add only a few words. It is here the first time, that Mr. Jackson, against hisformer declaration, advocates the year 1753 as starting-point for the nomen- clature with de ,crown* upon Linnaeus former labours, the Species plantarum. But if we look into that book, we find that there are missing: 1) all descrip- tions of genera, . . . 2) all references to the genera described by Linnaeus from 1737 to 17583; 8) descriptions of about 250 species in monotype genera. But we find therein too short species-diagnoses, quite insufficient, if Linnaeus would not have added re- ferences to older authors, descriptions and plates; that work had no other purpose than to establish his trivial names, mostly cut out of the old repro- duced species phrases. I would be ashamed of calling such a work the crown upon Linnaeus! labours, and of
| |
|
CLXXXV
clusion that any attempt to adopt genera of an earlier date [than 1753] will lead to hope- less confusion, to say nothing of inconvenience", I? Mr. Jackson recognizes no authorized start- ing-point, and so concedes to every one the privilege of reasoning and seleeting according to his own judgment, then this answer is measurably sufficient: though it leaves him in a position of injustice to Dr. Kuntze when he arraigns him as taking an "arbitrary" starting-point.
It ought here to be said in vindication of Dr. Kuntze that he does not regard himself as arbitrary in the selection of 1735 as the year from which to reckon genera. e pro- fesses to be conforming to International Law" ; and from this stand-point it seems to me clear enough without argument that if any general treatise of Linnaeus is to be taken as initial for genera, it is quite inevitably to be the Systema of 1735; and it looks as if Mr. Jack- son had seen this, and acted upon it up io à time when his reason may have become in- fluenced unduly by the discovery of extre- mely formidable obstacles to the reforming of nomenclature with this date for a basis. We now understand something of the magni- tude and multiplieity of the obstacles; but for the information we are indebted solely to Dr. Kuntze. Mr. Jackson did not stop to tell us, or even to give us a hint, until now the obstacles are at once revealed, and in large part removed, by Dr. Kuntze's work. Bur, to show how completely the Paris Code points backward to the earliest of Linnaeus! writings as our starting-point, let me quote here the essence of Article 15; which is to the effect that a genus *^of plants can bear in science but one valid designation, namely, the most ancient, whether given or adopted by Linnaeus or since his time". What this language gives to botany is, clearly enough, the most ancient names for genera which are found to have been in use, either by creation or adoption, without going back of Linnaeus. I believe that most botanists of note have always so understood the article, and that none have interpreted it otherwise; but Dr. Kuntze has been the first, after all these years, to show us what is the real effect of this rule when adopted and lived up to in a seholarly way.
The Paris Congress was emphatieally a movement for prioritv; and, as Linnaeus had introduced an era in nomenclature, back of which it was not thought well to go, if they had named any one work of his as a starting- point, it would naturally have been that in which that author himself had least contem- ned the principle of priority. In his earliest general work, ihe Systema Naturae, being himself young and doubtful of success, as well as also under the influence of sound prineiples ineuleated by all his predecessors — iu the Systema, and in that work only, did he seem
CLXXXVI
upon the labour of more than twenty years by the issue of the Species Plantarum ; then, for the first time, it is possible to look upon the whole edifiee, complete so far as the then state of botany extended. Still further, Linnaeus, as the inventor of the received nomenclature, had a perfectly free hand, and it is monst- rous to think of imposing upon him those restrictions which have become necessary since bis time. Many genera, sueh as Z4ethusa and Centaurea, took their modern form, or were first introduced, in the Species Plantarum, and it would be the merest pedantry to urge that they should be written .Ethusa and Cen- tauria, because that was their first guise; and they have never, so far als I know, ever had any speeifie names attached to them. Unfor- tunately, with some folk, that seems to be all the better reason for striking out a new path; we shall see plenty of examples of this later on.
Some of the changes which were introduced by Linnaeus, frequently in despite of his own canons, cannot be defended; thus, Bergius published his Littorella juncea in the Stock- holm .Handlingar in 1768, and when Linnaeus took up that genus and species in his Man- tissu he called it LL. lacustris; it is therefore not surprising that so many botanists have
proposing to start therewith. That is acrown upon an edifice without edifice; but we want the edifice of his labours and must use therefore all his former works and papers — 17 quoted by himself after the preface of his Spe- cies Plantarum 1753 wherein he established and described his genera. Moreover, Mr. Jackson is quite wrong if he thinks that 4/8 of all my proposed names would fall by changing the starting point of nomen- clature. In beginning with 1737 there is a gain of 2827 species names and 24 genera get new names; but starting with 1753 there must be given new names to 93 genera and 6876 specles; therefore Kew botanists pro- posed ineptly with 1753 a new starting-point which causes confusion and disadvantage. It does not seem that Mr. Juekson was well informed on the matter. See also my note Nr. 5. Linnaeus gave in 1735 a more ex- tensive explanation of hisSystem than in 1737; Mr.Jacksonisalsoherequite wrong with his ,folly* as he calls it above.
|
| ing-point,
to respect priority ; and in that is to be found the greatest number of f**most ancient names adopted by him." I repeat it; Il can see no lawful escape from the Systema as the start- if this rule of the Code be held as binding.
As a writer, Mr. Jackson is both clear and energetie; and, having denied to Dr. Kuntze the protection of any "International Law," and having placed him an arbitrary selecter of unfamiliar generie names, he would vanquish him with ease, if vigorous phrase could vanquish an opponent. The folly, to use no harsher term, of raking up names gi- ven by Moehring, or by Siegesbeck, in 1736, before Linnaeus had had an opportunity to fully explain his system, or even to supply the requisite details, needs no enforcing; the case of Siegesbeck is particularly gross, he being Linnaeus! most virulent oppoenent." The last clause reveals, what we fear has become habitual in the botanieal mind in certain quarters, the working of a prineiple which it was to be hoped had been abandoned in England, after all the mischief it has wrought there; I mean that of suppressing one man's new ge- nera, and giving them to another under other names, for the reason that he who had priority on his side, had the misfortune to be at va- rianee with him who was assumed to be the man of greater consequence. But it is plain that the critic looks upon the case of Moeh- ring and Siegesbeck versus Linnaeus as alto- gether exceptional; and where, if the same things had transpired before our eyes in mo- dern times, all the blame would have been charged to Linnaeus, Mr. Jackson finds no fault at all but on the other side; and their fault is that of not having regarded the youth- ful Linnaeus of 1736 as a great oracle, in whose presence all other botanists must, for a time, remain speechless that he may per- fect his great plans of reform! Surely Mr. Jaekson's language amounts to the plaeimg of Linnaeus in a very pereuliarly saered posi- tion among botanists between the years 1735 and 1753. He makes it irregular, or at least futile, for any one to have proposed a new genus of plants, or to have done anything else except in the spirit of deference to Lin- naeus, or as tributary to his fame.
But the situation was not, we think, really so weak as to have ealled for so great saeri- fice on. the part of Linnaeus eontemporaries, in order to the Linnaean sueeess, Systema Naturae is one of the most pretentious titles that a book of science ever bore, Nor would Linnaeus have been likely himself to have acceded to such a proposition as that "the first edition of the Systema was an outline sketeh only." But had it really been such, how absurd would it not have been for Lin- naeus to have bidden botanists discontinue all researeh from the date of its appearing, lay
LJ
* e
MARSENSAN RAT,
€
MSN
gone baek to the earlier and perfectly appro- priate name. i
It is now only fair that we should turn to the book itself to see how the author's erochets have taken shape. Here are a few proposed changes, whith assuredly would not Shorten citations:—
Pterospermadendron for Pterospermum.
Myrtoleucodendron | ,, Melaleuca Scolymocephalus » JProtea. Geraniospermum » JPelargonium 22 ).
'These seem bad enough, but worse follow : — Arundarbor for Bambusa.
Cacalia, » Vernonia.
Callista » JDendrobium. - . Pa'nijuncus ,, . Calamus.
Sorghum » -ndropogon.
T'ragacantha ,, Astragalus.
The last is the most flagrant instance of the author's whims. In the first edition of the Systema, Linnaeus printed the names thus: under Di/adelphia, Decandra, and sub- division *Fr. Biloeulari"—
Biserrula. Pelecinus T. Tragacantha.
Glycia. Astragalus T. meaning three genera. Glycia disappeared when the Genera came out, about fifteen months later, in favour of Astragalus, which genus in its turn, in 1753, absorbed also T'ragacantha. Yet, on this slender foundation, and in spite of of the clear intentions of Linnaeus himself, we have Dr. Kuntze adopt- ing Tragacantha, sinking .Astragalus; and then, growing more daring as his work went on, in his appendix aetually turning over by name about 1500 species to the rejected name Tragacantha 23).
??) Mr. Jackson is aceustomed to use
words as Mesembrianthemwm, Ophio- rhizophyllum , | Sebastiano-Schaueria, Pentstemonacanthus, wutricularioides, linearilanceolata, «rtemisiaefolia ete. and will learn surely also the few new- ones of this kind. Heon the contrary ought to thank me, for having eliminated by a new rule (cfr. Rev. gen. pl. p. XCV) too long words, or he would have likewise to learn: Hopophyllocarpo- dendron for Mimetes, JFianunculoplaty- carpus for Grielum, Ewupatariophala- cron for Kclipta, and so on.
?3) Mr. Jackson gave no correct reprint of Linnaeus syst. L. as to this genus; it must be thus: Tragacantha. Glyeia, Astragalus T. The diffe-
rence is, that Linnaeus in 1735 gave Astragalus only as à. synonym to his
CLXXXVII
down their pens and wait until, at the end of perhaps eighteen years, he should be able to set the crown on his own labors. And most unfortunately hard-pressed does the cri- tie seem to be who must resort to such a supposition in order to dare denounee the restoration of Moehring's and Siegesbeck's good genera as a ''foolish raking up of names," Linnaeus' first edition of the Systema he meant as an important and finished work of its kind. To cut all expressions down to their lowest intelligible terms and to make a book that should be a success, was a part of his well eontrived plan to gain ascendaney às a 'reformer" of genera, and inventor of a new and curious system of classes of plants. One eritie may no doubt say, if he will, that "Linnaeus, as the inventor of the received nomenclature, had a perfectly free hand, and it is monstrous to think of imposing on him those restrietions which have become necessary since his time;" but auother1:aay as well and as safely say, first, that Linnaeus invented absolutely nothing but a set of most artifi- ciallp and empirically eireumseribed plant orders and «classes: and second, that it is monstrous to think of imposing upon the learned and venerable botanists of that time the obli- gations of sitting eighteen years in idleness and silence, waiting for the young iconoclast to have finished what they called his work of "'eonfusion" before they published any more new genera of plants. Unless Moehring and Siegesbeck and some even more able men of their time were under some such curious restrietion, the genera which they published as new in 1736, have no other valid scien- tifie designations at the present moment, than those they gave them.
With Mr. Jaekson's disapproval of Dr. Kuntze's amendments of names, such as the changing of ZHondbessem into Hondbesseion, and Mokufinto Mokufua, we agree thoroughly. The *Revisio Generum" doubtless loses some of its foree through what seems to me the author's almost Linnaean wantonness of assump- tion along such lines. But I do not think that the matter of adopting, for example, Tragacantha in place of Astragalus, can in justice be relegated to the category of the "author's whims." Itis a well grounded and long admitted rule—though with this as with rules in general, it happens that some ignore it—that precedence is the same as priority in the absence of literal priority; and Traga- cantha has precedence over Astragalus, taking what seems to be the legal starting-point under the Paris Code. Both names are equally an- cient, and ancient in their present application also. Few perhaps care to know that Astra- galus has precedenee over Tragacantha with Tournefort.
Dr. Kuntze has assumed too many of the prerogatives of a bold reformer, no doubt;
MENNNUUUMPHT e
CLXXXVIII
Another method is to take old names, r pretenee of emending
, elling unde : ^ Ed en out clamet M names in i ;our24) for exampie:—- ce olt of Adanson becomes Hond- besseion of Kuntze, and to supersede Paederia. Katoutsjeroe of the same author is xd be Catutsjeron of Kuntze, in place of day apum Mokuf of the same author becomes Moku- fua of Kuntze, in place of Ternstroemia. : Again, sections have been allowed generic rank, never effected by their inventors, with spurious priority: here are à few:— ; Acanthonychia (S DC. 1828) for Pentacaenia, Siphoneranthemum ($ Oerst. 1831) for .Eran- themum. Sphaeroma ($8 DC. 1824) for Sphaeraleea. Tetraceratium (8 DC. 1824) for Tetracme ?). Yet more abhorrent to common sense are the following:—The Flora Zeylaniea was is- sued in 1747, being drawn up from Her- mann's herbarium; but a large number of the names then given were subsequently abandoned by their author, some having been based on imperfect material, others being un- couth, and derived from native names, so much so that Richter has not enumerated them all in his Codex Linnaeanus. In 1887, Dr. Trimen, having access to the original set of plants, now in the Botanical Department, British Museum, and having, by his long residence in Ceylon, a very extensive know- ledge of the flora, critically examined them, and published his determirations in the 24th volume of the Journal of the Linnean Society, pp.129-155. These rightfully neglected names are now dragged forth by Dr. Kuntze, who thinks it would be convenient to use such names as these:—
new name Glycia. Glycia never having got species-namés, I was obliged to take Tragacantha. Mr. Jackson could not have made it differently if he had performed his former proclamation to begin with 1735.
^*) Error Jacksonianus, The alteration of the names is an ortho- graphical one; whoever doesnot like to accept this alteration, must accept the name without correction ; for instance the quoted names Hondbessey Katout- Jeroe, Mokwf must stand at all events The Kew botanists use many names of Adanson in a latinized manner and latinized also Caybepi — Karbeni Ad. p. 532 in Carbenjq.
*^?) According to 8 58 of the Laws,
which has been often applied also in Kew.
MEME MS
but in all his volumes one may not find ; example of a eertain kind of pure and ir b. parently vaeuous assumptions such as Mr. Jackson's halfdozen Here is one: "Genera aside because
ans. pages are pi uid whieh have à c : ve been get le t of their obscurity,, can nof be revivified by any later study. In the gb. straet this is simply saying that a pieee of identifieation whieh one man has undertaken and failed to make, can not be made by any one: or equally, that what an earlier gelu tion has failed to make out, no subsequent one need undertake. ut, aecording to Mr. Jackson, even if it were otherwise, and one futile effort in such a direction did not pre- clude a later," no sensible person would wan. tonly infliet a wrong on the botanieal common. wealth by aseertaining the genera of old authors; as it can only be of antiquarian interest." Here, in the first clause, it is made a wrong even to acquire a certain kind of knowledge, if its acquisition be possible. Is then the present state of botany so preearious that some kinds of knowledge must be abso- lutely avoided, lest wrong be inflieted on the science? This sounds like an echo of that proseription of research which men have said belonged to *dark ages." Nor is the second clause of the quotation more fortunate: know- ledge of old authors in botany *'ean only be of antiquarian interest," I had always sup. posed that the antiquities of astronomy, for example, were of astronomical interest, and that the antiquities of another very old science, botany, were really of botanical interest. I can but wonder, after what Mr. Jackson here sets forth, if conforming to his proseriptive views, the great botanieal libraries of London have lately made over to the antiquaries their hundreds of fine folios of the *old authors" in botany. If they heed this particular one of their botanieal writers, that is what they must do; for it were waste of valuable space to retain them where they were wont to be kept; and their presence where young bota- nists go, would remain a temptation to some to *infliet a wrong on the botanieal common- wealth by ascertaining the genera of old authors"! Another phase of the critie's as sumptiveness comes out where he argues that Linnaea ought to stand in place of the prior name Obolaria for this reason, among others, that the plant became the crest of Linnaeus when he was ennobled, and is now the badge of the Linnaean Society of London. ; I must allude, finally, to the eritie's strie- tures upon my having "revived some of Rafi nesque's forgotten or condemned genera. : do not think I have ever proposed the rem statement of a *condemned" genus of Ralfines que, though I have restored to quite a number of long accepted genera their only valid deslg- nations, that is, the names imposed by bim; names belonging to him, but of whieh he Wà$
"lis OK." is
Gaedawakka tor Chaetocarpus. Kaluhaburunghos for Cleistanthus. Santalodes for Bowrea. Stoechadomentha tor Adenosma. Genera, which have been set aside because of their obseurity, cannot be revivified by any
- later study; were it otherwise ; no sensible
person would wantonly iüfliet a wrong on the botanieal commonwealth by ascertaining the genera of old authors; as it is it can only be of antiquarian interest. Still, even Dr. Kuntze sets some limit, and does not sanction the use of generic names of more than six syllables.
Here are a few more names from this
- Store-house of topsy-turveydom :—
-Alga for Posidonia.
Erica for Calluna. Obolaría for Linnaea. -Acetosella for Oxalis. KEricodes for Erica. icinocarpus for .Acalypha. Oxydectes for Croton., Trophaeum for Tropaelowm.
It should be noted that "*Obolaria borea- to supersede the Lnnaea bo- realis of the Master: it seems hardly decent to bring forward Siegesbeck's apparently con-
j| temptuous name?5 b) in place of that which - was expressly desired by Linnaeus himself, - as emblematic of his own fate, a northern - plant, lowly, flowering early, and long nezlec- "ted, which became his erest when he was -ennobled, and is now the badge of the Lin- ^ mean Society of London.
Reference has been made to the licence whieh Dr. Kuntze allows himself in amending
. names; this euts two ways, for he conccives
himself also bound to abolish all names wich come within a certain degree of resemblance. One instance is that. of Gray's Tetraclea, which
- ds made use of to oust Teíraclis Hiern in - favour of Bisaschersonia Kuntze ; but the most »Striking example is the following: CAlora Adans. -of Seguiera Manetti (1751) non Seguieria Loefl. (1758): then Chloris Sw. is allowed to ' Stand, but dispossesses Chloraea Lindl. for -sarea, enlarged, and Corea Nyl. becomes of place is sometimes allowed, as in the case of Aruba position in the same volume, which was issued com- Buda, because of specific names having been applied There is sound sense in this, which, had it prevailed throughout the rest
JNylanderaria Kuntze. Priority for Simaba, on account of its earlier plete; but not allowed in the case of to Buda fist.
CLXXXIX
deprived, at first, by the envy, the hatred or the malice of his contemporaries. But since at Kew they now and then perform the same kindly office, restoring the "forgotten or con- demned genera" of Salisbury or of S. F. Gray, to the displacement of substitutes offered by Smith or Goodenough or Bentham, I claim immunity from their censure, at least in this. But when Mr. Jaekson observes that ,JacL- sonia to supersede Polanisia does not greatly matter, for Polanisia is now sunk in Cleome,? he is assuming the prerogatives of either an individual or insular absolutism. He seems to be saying that what they do in Kew is done: and that all else that happens in the small world botanieal beyond shall count for nothing. ''Polanisia"' is well known by many botanists to be as good a genus as can be found in the family of plants to which it belongs*). I think no American botanist of any note, since Rafinesque proposed the genus, has questioned its validity, or been able to admit that Mr. Bentham did well in reman- ding the species to Cleome. So while Mr. Jackson. with such complacency pronounces the earliest of all Jaeksonias a figment, we with a degree of equanimity express our own and some other people's opinion by writing it as an excellent genus.
") I do not find that the best character for Jacksonia as contrasted with Cleome has ever been indicated. In the former the valves of the capsule are persistent and remain uni- ted to near the summit, their tips then sepa- rating and becoming reeurved! In Cleome the valves are not only deciduous, but separate from their axis from below, the tip being the last part to become detached.
is hustled out of existence in favour
of the work, would have enormously diminished the number of .novelties.
No one need be surprised to find the well-known names of Caleeolaria, ria, and .Límoniwm applied in unfamiliar Ways.
whieh have been made before,
?5^) Why shall be Oboloria Sie against Linnaea? Mr. D. Jackson had Obolaria was published in 1736 befor was established. On the contrary Linnaeus
Lobelia, Allia- There are, of course, some alterations
such as .Hookera for Brodíaea, and T'ichosporum | tor
£. an apparently contemptuous name
apparently forgotten that Siegesbeck's
e the Linnaea of Linnaeus in 1787
was ,contemptuous* by changing
Siegesbeck's Obolaria into Linnaea and naming another genus Obolaria. In
1736 Siegesbeck was not yet an opponent to Linnaeus,
wrote wrongly on the other page.
Kuntze, Rev. gen,
as Mr. Jackson
III
CxC
l thus. Angraecum cThouars" is to sink in favour of Angorchis , for certain reg. "Aeschynan i convineing to the author; but he has missed the faet that the Species ^ à -- eburneum "whieh illustrated "Thouars's memoir in 1824 was the very same
of Angraecum e Vincent in 180326) Dr. Kuntze's objections are consequently in. - sued - sas Pan de eut from under his feet. Again, he seleets JFdwardia for the valid, ris imet dm overlooking Dr. Stokes's DBichea, whieh was two years earlier. M a. suia amount of confusion may be best estimated from the few. examples as
sons whiel
follows: — 9; : Des?. bec OB "e E n AA OA ^arpus Desf, becomes Roeperia S : Acalypha L. becomes Ricinocarpus Burm. ; Ricinocar] pera Spreng.;
4a F. Muell. becomes Justago Kuntze. m dama Willd. becomes Hartogia L.; Harlogia L. f. becomes Sehrebera "Thunb,
z jj Rich. 2*). Sehrebera Roxb. becomes Nathusi | iate NP d a ERIS Ionidium Vent. becomes Caleeolaria Loefl.; Calceolaria **Juss," becomes F'agelia Schwenk, ;
? ia Neck. becomes Bolusafra Kuntze. | ar Tratt. becomes Saussurea Salisb.; Saussurea DC. becomes T'heodorea (8 Cass.)
. mes Rodriqueziella Kuntze. . icr epus que a si M clearance, the author is EVEN to adorn rd pages with many graceful dedications to those botanists for whom - ne E specia regard, or from whom he has received benefit. "The recipients of such favours may not be very ompliment.
ES rud pne ja many of the old forms of names, Dr. Kuntze has contrived some very ingenious prefixes and suffixes: thus, botanists engaged n the study of the African flora are distinguished by the addition of -afra to their generie term; for instance, Bolusafra, Ernstafra, Schinzafra ; American workers have the addition of amra, such as Watsonamra, Brittonamra; Asia is applied as lfoasia, Mazimowasia ; India as Kinginda, Ridleyinda. Titles of honour are also pressed into the service, and. we find Aregelia from von Regel, Sirhookera and Sirmuellera irom Sir Joseph Hooker and Sir Ferdinand von Mueller; a species of Helianthus, which is dedicated to Dr. Urban, has the punning title of Urbanisol; and the class of eompilers, those "harmless drudges," have the suffix -ago, from the Latin ago, agere, as Justago; Christian names are also combined with surnames, in the fashion of Lindley's 4sagraea, thus, Jamesbrittenia, Paulomagnusia; names combined with places, as Hallomuellera, Lippomuellera, that is, Mueller of Halle, and Mueller of Lipp- stadt; and special work is also alluded to, as Phaenohoffmannia. Nebrownia and Pasaccardoa are formed by means of the initials of Mr. N. E. Brown and Prof. P. A. Saeecardo; whilst there are others which are simply commemorative, such as Dyerophytum, Hemsleyna, Hoo- kerina, and. Nicholsoniella.
lt is saddening to think that so many years of diligent labour should have been spent on work which, if accepted, would plunge,the science into a deeper confusion than that from which it was rescued by Linnaeus. Indireetly the volume must do good, as showing the reckless extremes to which the *priority-at-any-priee" men will go in pursuit of their whims. Changes in nomenclature, if absolutely necessary, ean only be made by monographers, who from their study of the entire material, are in a position to speak with authority; thus I may instance the rehabilitation of Auble/s genus l'ibouchina, by Prof. Cogniaux, in the Flora DBrasiliensis, and in his monograph of the Melastomaceae, instead of the much later one, Ple- roma of D. Don, which had come into vogue. "The main lines of nomenclature have long since been laid down, and no attempt to transform them in this wholesale manner ean avail: reform can only come in staid, sober fashion, as a dose of some drug, which, if given at once, would be fatal, may be benefieial if administered gradually. Inattention to this obvious truth has obseured the real amount of good work in these volumes, lost in the mass of proposed revolutionary changes, whieh Dr. Kuntze will find it diffieult to persuade botanists of any nationality to adopt.
In close relation to the subject in hand, I have within the last few days heard, from Prof. C. $. Sargent, the strange doctrine that no name which has ever been used as à Syho- nym can again be used as the name of a genus or species, If this extraordinary notion Were followed it would place the entire nomenclature of plants at the mercy of any reekless or incompeient writer, who might easily reduce, and thus nullily, perhaps the life-work of the
L
26 " LI * LI 1 : ) Bory, 1803, has neither established nor revised the genus 4ngraecum , e added one species more to Angraecii Rumpf, that contains 1 dozen or more genera of Orchids.
: Is Mr. Jackson able to avoid such a ,confusion*? If he would have revised these names, he could not hav
uid
e done it otherwise,
e ea E MEN ERE
LR À 4 A A Wo 74 2 2 2"
ww
"-"- uw ————
AMPLE
J-H EE SO RES
AS WU GSGIXxAaen—HiGU
a
CXCI
foremost phytologists. As an instance of how this might work, take the case of the vast genus séragalus, whieh, by the observanee of this plan, would now be destitute of any name, for in turn all its names have been taken as synonyms, such as Glycia, Phaea, Pelecinus, Tragacantha, Astragalus, and Biserrula. Such a plan is absolutely unworkable, as many names which are now in common use have at one time suffered eclipse.
Before eoncluding it may be well to notice one other Strange aberration, which is to be found in the last number of Píttonia, where Prof. Greene has revived some of Rafinesque's forgotten or condemned genera, and in accordance therewith renamed many species. Jacksonia, to supersede Zolanisia, does not greatly matter, for Polanisia is now sunk in Cleome, there- fore the homonym of Robert Brown is in no danger of extinction ; but there are many others whieh might give some trouble. In this memoir, too, we find the citation of such unknown botanieal authors as Catullus, and similar writers. This practice is not conducive to botany, nor even to scholarship, for it does not require much classical ability to look in a Latin dic-
tionary to discover many plant names are there to be found eited as occurring in the pages of
the Roman writers.
A [fact which eannot be gainsaid remains, that these men did not define
these genera in a Linnean sense, and therefore to cite either them, or even comparatively much later ones for specifie names, as *Dod." or *C, Bauh." is mere antiquarian, and not modern
botany. -^
Vagaries such as these are sure to oceur. Every age has had persons of the type of Ra finesque, and we need entertain little doubt that the good sense of the great body of worker in botany will in future, as in the past, sweep aside these flimsy webs of Sophistry in favour of procedure that has in the main worked excellently for more than a century, which, being
based upon foundations of practical utility,
Februar 1892. Prof. Dr. N. L. Britton in Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, page 50—65 reviews my book:
In the course óf Dr. Kuntze's extensive travels in all parts of the world since the year 1874, he accumulated a collection of plants aggregating 7706 numbers. In the sub- sequent study of this great amount of mate- rial, carried on principally in the Herbaria at Berlin and at Kew, he was confronted with the problem of determinating on the system of nomenclature he should adopí for them. He wisely decided to adhere strietly to the principles of priority laid down by the Paris Congress of botanists, and his re- sults are now given to the world in the two fine volumes before us. In addition to the elaboration of his own eollections, he under- took an even more extensive work, and one of very much more general importance. He decided to investigate the status of every £enerie name in use, and to point out the oldest available one for every genus recog- nized by him, visiting for this object the most extensive and complete botanical libra- ries in Europe. It is interesting to note in this eonnection that he found the Library of the British Museum of Natural History 28) superior tho all others.
?5) "The old British Museum London W. C. Great Russel-street keeps the richest library; the new branch: British Museum of Natural History in London- Kensington was not meant.
will endure long after these ingenious contri- vers are as little followed as the old masters of
pre-Linnean botany are at the present day.
15. August 1892. Rev. Prof. Ed- ward L. Greene in his Pittonia II 215—291:
The one review among all those read by me, whieh is moderate in its censures, and duly appreciative of Dr. Kuntze's immense and riehly valuable labors, is that of Dr. Britton of Columbia College; and this has been made elaborate to the extent of a long list of the American genera affected by the researches of the author of the '/Revisio." This list will become one of the necessary adjunets of cri- tieal work in nomenclature in our country. The reviewer has given many comments of his own at different places throughout the list, upon only a few of which would I make any remark.
The date of the first edition of Linnaeus "Genera Plantarum" (1737) is Dr. Britton's chosen starting-point; but whether he has ever considered the very extremely retroactive ex- pressions of the Paris Code, and whether he holds the Code, to be his law, I know not. He is struck with Dr. Kuntze'*s new method of using the parenthetie author-eitation, na- mely, that of placing it after the name of the author of the combination rather than be- fore it, and finds this practice inexplicable. It seems clear enough to me that by Dr. Kuntze's method a point in obedience to; the International Law is gained; for that law demands, if I mistake nof, that the name of the author of a combination shall follow the combination immediately. Unless one count à parenthesis as nothing at all—to which view, in my mind, little or no exeeption can be
III*
MENU
CXCII
The chapters of this book treat of J I. Àn Itinerary of his travels; Il. A eritieism of Durand's *Index Generum Plantarum di HI. An account of the errors in that work ; IV. Pfeif- fer's *Nomenclator Botanieus,^ V. Linnaeus relations with his eontemporaries; VI. The chan- ges of names made by Linnaeus and his eon- temporaries ; VII. Instability of Nomenclature from the time of Linnaeus to the end of the eighteenth century; VIII. Considerations on the founding of generie names; IX. Changes of names by the elevation of sections to ge- nera and for linguistie reasons; X. Homo- nyms, a cause of the ehanging of names and a lasting source of instability in nomenclature; XI. The simultaneous appearance of publi- cations and the incompleteness of libraries ; XII. Bentham and Hooker's *Genera Plan- tarum"; XIII. Convenienee as a hindrance to the aeceeptance of correct names; XIV. Lin- naeus ^Systema Naturae" Edition L, as the beginning of generic nomenclature; XV. Sug- gested modifieations of the international laws of nomenclature of 1867; XVI. Pritzel's *"Thesaurus Literaturae Botanicae ;? XVII. Mo- dern English nomenclature: (this chapter writ- ten in English, and especially interesting to English botanists). Then follows a iist of the plants eolleeted by the author, with all gene- rie priorities in the entire vegetable kingdom which he has ascertained, this occupying the greater part of the book.
We have neither leisure nor space to satis- faetorily present the arguments advanced and the general results arrived at in this great work. It must be in thehands of every working botanist, whether he agree with the author wholly or in part. The changes in names which he proposes are for the most part based on perfectly sound principles, and will, no doubt, be widely ac- cepted. We think it a great mistake to go back to the first edition of Linnaeus Systema for generie names, and believe that the first edition of his *Genera Plantarum" of 1737 to be the most satisfactory point of departure It is to be noted that Dr. Kuntze has io sympathy with citing authors older than the Linnaean time, remarking that a fixed basis is essential for the beginning of nomenclature which is just the position I have repeatedly taken. I consider the argument for the *& : stema" " Fes as not convincing, while tle reasons ior the ** U : satisfactory. xdaecpt e ri n sé à € erg of species and their authors
üre:'y new method to propose He would write, for example, Castalia odo- raía Greene (L.) that is, to cite the orgi al author of the specifie name behind the i rem of the binomial. Just what is to b api bv thi e gained y this method over the one so widely in vogue of reversing this arrangement and
writing Castalia odorata (L.) Greene, is not
taken — the placing of it between the eom bination and the name of the author of the combination violates the Code. ,
In remarking upon the generie name Dursq, as antedating Capsella, Dr. Britton savg that the binary name for the common Shepherd's Purse becomes Juwrsa pastoris; to which I assent; but I would ask how, upon his own prineiples, that can be, since he insists that every name used as a specific by Linnaeus must be preserved in its integrity, even in the extreme case where the specifie becomes a duplieate of the generie name. By the code of the ornithologists to which he has announ- ced his full submission, the name of this weed must be Bursa Bursa pastoris.
Citing Dr. Kuntze's return to the primi- tive applieations of Erysimum, Nasturtiun and other names of: eruciferous genera, his comments run thus: *The unnecessary mischief of going back to the Systema Plantarum of 1735 is well illustrated by these four citations, It overturns several hundred specifie names in very closely related genera, apnd, as far as I ean see, has absolutely nothing to be said iu its favor". Well; the deed which had ab- solutely nothing to be said in its favor was that of Linnaeus, when in 1737 he transposed all these four names, attaching each one to a genus which almost from time immemorial had been known by one of the other names. It was this wilful, presumptuos and wholly inexeusable transposing of names which made the better class of Linnaeus! contemporaries in 1737 look on him with distrust. It was he who did the mischief; and Dr. Kuntze, by going back to 1735 — the time when Lin- naeus himself had not ventured to remove the ancient landmarks nor dispossess these four genera of their right names by wanton transpositions — has simply been true to prio- rity. "This must be admitted as in favor of what he has done; while if his 1735. start- ing-point be the legal one, he has obeyed the law.
Mr. Jackson has well denounced as a "spurious priority" that with which Dr. Kuntze sometimes affects to invest subgenerie names by placing them on a level with the generie ?), degrading to the rank of synonyms the oldest generie names when they happen to be more recent than the sectional ones; and Dr. Brit- ton, to my dismay, under SpAaeroma versus Sphaeraleea, accedes to the proposition that this is wisely done, It is one of the grossest violations of the fundamental principle that an author must never make another say what
*| That agrees with 8 58 of the Laws of Nomenclature. I can notagree with Prof. Greene on this point; see Rev. gen. pl. p. 218. Norwantshetofearanother uphea vel by $ 58, for I have already worked up all such names as I met with.
"SOSA Cp WEM OCTO CCU— o w4A& CU YXAS Cue C X—— o-— — o-——
I-E WW. uu 38 IEUN
— MÀ NEC
* S
EN UO ud 227 27 42;
Ld L2
3
CXCIII
obvious. Indeed the appearance of this book | he has not said; and there is no plea that will I believe, tend to bring the method of | ean excuse it. De Candolle in 1824 proposed the American ornithologists and other zoo- | no genus Sphaeroma, nor had he any such logists into inereasing favor, and eause many | intention, and there is not the shadow of war- to write Castalia odorata, (L., which method |.rant or any one's saying that he did. "The Dr. Kuntze stigmatizes as false and often | first man to call this group a genus appears used by modesty or by negligence or by fear | to have been St. Hilaire; and he who gives of responsibility." — However, if this is not | his genus to another is chargeable with double employed, and there is a general acceptance | injustice. He injures both De Candolle and of the generie names pointed out by the author | St. Hilaire. He deprives both of them of certain as having priority, it will necessitate writing | rights, the latter of his genus and its name, the Kuntze (contraeted to OK. by Dr. Kuntze) | former of his right to call them, what he did call after surely not less than 25,000 specifie na- | them, only so many species of Malva, I know it mes, a positively fearful thing for Americans | is assumed that this compelling a man to say to contemplate. *a& genus" where he did not think there was While we consider that Dr. Kuntze has gone | more than a section is presumed to be a re- too far in beginning his nomenclature with | warding of his modesty. But it may be with the Linnaean Systema of 1735, we do not think | modesty, as with other virtues, that it is its that he has gone quite far enough in other | own reward. However that nay be, the prin- directions. He has not accepted the impor- | ciple of representing an author as saying what tant principle that a name once used for an | he never did say is one of the most odious organism ought to be applieable to thatand to | of literary vices. The plea of convenience no other, the doctrine of ^onee a synonym | is not often appealed to by me— the funda- always a synonym 29)" which would effeetually | mental principles of justice and right always prevent the instability of nomenclature due | in the long run making for convenience in to homonyms; he has not accepted specific every way most thoroughly — but this work names identieal with generie30) making here | of deposing valid generie names in favor of an exception to his otherwise stringent rules of | the spurious priority of sectional ones, will ereate priority, and while he accept the idea of prio- | another upheaval in nomenclature scarcely se- rity of plaee being as important as priority | cond to this whieh Dr. Kuntze's principles of time, it is only with important modifica- | have brought to pass; and we sincerely hope tions, which do not appear to me to have any | that Dr. Britton may reconsider this momen- sound basis. The only rule that can be effec- | tous question. tive in this matter must be one without ex- ceptions, if we are to arrive at fixed results. ENGA Dr. Kuntze's ehapter. on the dates of pu- blieation of the writings of the older authors is worthy of the closest attention. It supplies information which only a favored few have at their command, and for whieh he will have the lasting gratitude of botanists generally for years to come,
The principal changes suggested for the generic names of North American plants are appended. I have annotated a few of them. It should be stated that in all eases which I have had time to examine I find his dates and facts entirely correct. (Now Dr. Britton gives on pages 53 —65 a list of all North-american genera-names, which I changed, except those of cellular eryptogams. In consequence of his starting-point of 1737 he rejects 44 names from the 249 names, and according to the not yet legalized principle *once a synonym always a synonym" 9 names are changed 31)). He writes: Coulterina Kuntze — Physaria Nutt. 1838 not Physa- riwm Pers. 1795, the latter a genus of fungi. The name is in honor of President John M. Coulter. As Mr. Rose has already dedicated to him a genus Coulterella (Contr. U. S. Nat. Herb. No. III 71, 1890) in Compositae, it is unlikely that the one here proposed will be main- tained. If two names of different gender, such as Physaria and. Physarium, cannot stand, it seems logical that 2 genera should not stand for the same person 32),
??) That new principle would alter many hundreds of well known genera names; if accepted by a competent congress it could only be applied to future names. Rights acquired by authors under laws shall and ean not be altered without permission of such authors still alive.
39) See $ 60 sub 2 of Paris Code which I could and would not change.
?1) "There are yet interesting notes on genera-names but it is not here the
place to discuss them, as I intented to diseuss here only on principles of nomenclature,
* : i; ?*) There is a. great difference between finals 8$: Q, $0, WS, (us, wm, dum etc. and suffies as: ella, ima, «rid, aster, opsis and about 15 more of
QuEuS RUEE HUS fMi ret S z: SEINS
CXCIV
Februar und Márz 1892. Roscoe Pound (Lincoln-Nebraska), in The Ameriean Naturalist p. 147—155 und 226—281 writes:
Kuntzes Revisio Generum. — Whenever a work appears in which the nomenclature is not exactly the same as that of the manuals in popular use, the charge is made that the *changes" are wanton and made simply from love of novelty Or à desire to bring the author to notice. There may sometimes be ground for this charge, when brought against makers of catalogues or writers of short notes in magazines. None of the writers who have treated nomenclature in that striet and consistent manner which renders necessary the abandonment of some familiar names have been in a position to entirely divest themselves of suspicion as they generally made their investigations from the start with the sole purpose of determining the validity of names in use—not as inci- dental to some other work. "These charges cannot be made with the same force against Kuntze's Revisio Generum the most extensive and complete as well as one of the most radieal revisions of nomenelature that has yet appeared. —
Kuntze made a tour around the world from 1874—1876. He began to study and classify his coliections maüe on ina, tourin X503 4 inv G»ebosirswm EAS, T2Xse—Wolkeü there until 1887, when he went to Kew, where he continued his work until the end of 1890. The result is his *Revisio." It will be seen, therefore, that he did not begin the work of revision in cold blood of malice aforethought, but was drawn into it in the course of other investigations. In classifying his colléctions he attempted to do something more than identify them. He studied them, and as a result wrote several monographs, of which he published some separately and incorporated others in the present work. In the present condition of nomenelature, he found that next after the proper limitation of a genus or species, the determination of the name to be applied was of the highest importance and the latter had become a much more difficult task in some instances than the former, as those who had worked at the one with the greatest care had used little or no care in the other. He decided to examine the names he applied with the greatest care and to reach as far as possible a pernianent result. The great extent of homonymy and synonymy made it necessary for him to examine every generic name in use in order to be sure that he was giving one whose title could not be doubted. 'To do this thoroughly, implied a revision of all the genera and he proceeded at once to examine the original sources and make a revision de novo instead of contenting himself with leaning upon the work of others. What ever may be thought of the result, in this case the motive can hardly be impeached. And it must be said, however radical his views on nomenclature seem, that in all other respects he is in the main very conservative. lle repeatedly expresses his approval of Bentham and Hooker's limitations of genera and condemns severely the multi- plieation of genera and species.
He bases his revision upon the rules of the Congress at Paris in 1867; giving them à strict construetion in order to prevent any doubt. He shows that these rules bave not been followed in practice, but that there is no alternative between them and chaos in nomenclature. Some confusion has arisen also from defects in these rules—or as he ex- pressed it, he found "leaks" in them. These leaks he has attempted to repair by framing additions and amendments to the rules. He made a thorougb and complete revision of all the genera of Phanerogams and Pteridophytes and of many genera of Bryophytes,
v um a9 ib DET PTEREES
wx WE UAR O^ VO- V3 LA ul wa (15. wb WC Wu ur. oW
single suffixes (no compounds with other words) By the suffixes the body of a word is always altered, f. i. Lawur-us, Laurid-ia, Laureol-a, Laurin-ium, Laurel-ia. Or to compare the same with words of current language: Ehr-e, Ehrlich-er, Ehrbar-es, Ehrsam, Ehrlos, Ehrliehkeit-en, Ehrbarkeit . . Ehrsam- keit . ., Ehrlosigkeit; host(-s), hostil-e, hostilit-y (ies), hostiliz-ed, hosting, hosticide, hostiliness and hostag-e; hostess, hostessship, hostler, hostlery. According to established custom in botany the body of a word augmented by suffixes does not admit of being altered, although Linnaeus and Rafinesque did so; but it has been a custom with many botanists for about 150 years to alter occasionally the
finals (a, ia, us, dum ete). See page CVII — CVIT of my Rev.gen. pl, where
instances are given of no less than 193 cases of finals altered by the authors, the number of names so
of Britton ean not be mad names than ever had been
altered. by and by may exeeed 1200. That idea e & rule, or we would have to rejeet more generi altered by rules since Linnaeus.
TN
77 2
58 - P zd
£22IEZ P,
r
CXCV
Fungi and Algae whieh came to his notice in revising the nomenelature of the Phanero- gams—as he was forced to examine everywhere to be sure, that the names he adopted were nof in prior use elsewhere. There is no complete unity in the work, for besides the revision of nomenclature, in a few cases he has made a revision of the contents of à genus, or a monograph of the genus or some part of it, perhaps extending even to forms of a species. 'lhere is also a list of plants collected on his tour, dovetailed into the revision. "The book seems to be a compilation of the work he did upon his collection or which he was drawn into in the progress of that work. It would take a critic almost as long to verify the work as it did the author to do it; and lI wish it understood, that the statements hereinafter made are on the authority of the work itself unless otherwise indicated.
'The book opens with a long and somewhat ramblling preface in which the author describes the circomstances which led him into the work. He then takes up the vital ques- tion of the necessity of such a revision and gives three principal causes of the alterations he has made. The first arises from matters of form as prescribed by the international rules. Some of these he has formulated more strictly and *'completed in order to abate the multi- tude of variations and to bring controverted cases to an easy decision" *Many persons" he adds "will recognize for the first time out of the mass of alterations the difficulties which inconsistencies in this respect may produce and the necessity of fixed ground principles for nomenclature". The second cause is, '*Correction of and atonement for accomplished wrong. This is the greatly preponderating cause of the restoration of many rightful names." "It is strange" he continues *'that the children of Flora to the advocates of scientia amabilis have so often given oecasion in their naming nichts weniger als amabiles zu sein towards their comrades"'. The third cause is that monographers and universal systematists have mostly slighted the revision of generic names. WV/here they have had it brought to their notice, they have made some revisions, but for the most part they have taken what names they found. *Monographers" he says **ought to have such revision in view next after their principal object; but they are often not in a position to do this, as in the correlation of homonymy the nomenclature of the whole system must be examined, for which the monographers mostly have not the requisite materials. In the concentration of their powers upon the internal work of the monograph, this revision is often discontinued. 'The universal syste- matists, moreover, rely principally upon the monographs, and seldom correct them—in this circulus vipiosus a careful study of the older sources is let slip by all."
In the introduction to his revision he supplements this statement by a detailed ac- count of the causes of the present state of nomenclature; and the large number of exam- ples which he gives certainly show a much more chaotie condition than one would suppose, even in spite of the discussions going on in the magazines, and the unfamiliar names to be met with in every new catalogue. "Above all,' he says, *my revision shows that the present condition of botanical nomenclature is still very unhealthy. "The great Linné in- deed reformed Botany, but unfortunately he introduced a taint at the same time which has transmitted itself with botanists . . . . .. namely unfairness towards coworkers. If this taint does not disappear, the international nomenclature must perish, and this aid to an unterstanding between botanists become bankrupt. 'The botanical Congress in Paris in 1867 first made way for the cure. I hope throught this work to accelerate it.
He also diseusses in the preface the **Benthamian-rule" that a species-name 1s only an ineident to the genus name and the international rule that *a name is a name". He eriticises Bentham quite severely, and in the main justly, and gives some interesting examples of the way he multiplies species names on changing a species from one genus to another. He shows that this was a general practice of the successors of Linnaeus and of botanists early in this century, and observes that it is not to be expected that English- man will abandon this old method merely because it produces inconvenience and confusion and adopt the international principle, any more than that they will even adopt the metric system or the centigrade thermometer cr decimal system of money. In this section of modern English nomenclature he enlarges upon this in discussing *the renewed Kew rule" whieh is nothing but Bentham's rule again. He then discusses author-citation. After devoting some time to criticising the Boissierian or "*pietistic" method, he gives his own view which is somewhat novel. The following extract also shows a characteristic of the book which strikes one very oddly at first. "That is its polyglot composition (of also the title. English, French and Latin come unexpeetedly upon the reader in the midst of the German on every page. 'lhe words in italics are in English in the original.
. *"Convolvulus reptans L. 1753 — Ipomoea aquatica Forsk. 1775 (misfortune or mostly piracy) — Ipomoea reptans L. (pietism) — Ipomoea reptans (L.) Poir. (seduction) — Ipo- moea reptans Poir. (L.) (correctness), Ipomoea reptans Poir. (international). *'He thinks
ILUXLCcT Imc ————— € Ó— € ———
Lumen p NOE:
EE e EE I MORI eee Eg
CXCVI
(Convolvulus re ke llen" he "ag, un Mice — 48 an x "ent Poir. (L. 54arlier, he continues, *it seeme
pau " et T M c lors ware to be cited. But the citation ot indifferent e — which I have denominated 'seduction' seduces through the praetice Erba Mr pmitting the *Poir' unconseiously to the false method of pietism , [U : »" - iet Bids of two authors alone leads to order" does it follow that the evil jte patei will be obviated by the method iriposent uu * a lazy Or a hasty man be more certain to abbreviate by omitting the last author than »y leaving ouf the first? Will he not be pretty sure to leave out the name in parenthesis wherever it stands? Or at least will he not be governed by a bias toward pietism or the reverse quite ag much as by the order in which the names are written? It seems to me that his objection is fanciful and that his citation - vtm be termed *'distraction" as increasing the a]. , , methods of citation 33). POL Wo aredibe there is a long introduction. He first treats of the materials for revision. Section 1 is devoted to a severe criticism of Durand's Index to Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum —'BHgp" he appreviates it. Among other things he charges that a large part of the index, including some errors, is borrowed without credit from Pfeiffer's Nomenclator Botanicus.
Section 2 is entitled "Certain common causes of the many mistakes in Durand's Index and on the future prevention of such mistakes." "The first cause is inconsistent treatment of authors. Some are entirely neglected unless they were the emendators of a genus while other ,,beliebte Autoren", though pre-Linnaean are cited ven to emended genera. Another cause, he points out, is inconsistency and confusion in the use of the abbreviations *MS., msc." "ined." etc. He distinguishes "such names found or given in "Msc." as are adopted and published by another author" from "names found in Msc. which another author rejects, but which are published as synonyms". These he says are badly confused in practice, and he distinguishes the latter as *(nomina inapplieata (n. inappl.) and the former as "nomina adoptata (n. adopt.)' He also points out the confusion resulting from irregular use of mon for p. p., emend., etc. and shows the cases to which it should be restricted. It will be seen that he is very strict as to the smallest details. It often seems, as if the distinetions he draws were to small to notice until his formidable lists of the results of looseness are examined. He cites copiously and apparently exhaustively on every point and argues with some force.
., 1n section 3 he considers Pfeiffer's *Nomenclator Botanieus" at some length, criti- cisin some parts of it a little. Ineidentally he says that neither Pfeiffer nor Durand took enough time for their work, and that as a result the former is *leaky" and the latter »80rgloss fehlervoll.*
Sections 4—12 deal with the *"prineipal causes of the present condition of nomen- elature." ,Bection 4 is entitled *Linné's competition with his contemporaries." Linné, it seems, in reforming nomenclature, besides changing many bad names, *wilfully altered "uid good earlier genus names" and after 1737 was very free in altering the names given
y those of his contemporaries who ventured to criticise him or who did not adopt his Qotnentlatire, Bays Kuntze: "Linné was great as an investigator, a discriminating ob- Mickiny. Mid thinker vind immense talent for 'Systematics', a tireless worker, an SL Qeniy of ^ qme man and on the whole an honorable cbaracter, but exces- ment, tolerating no " ositio : (nee - mend EL" wage names (even those WRITE Dae AS himself an autocrat, he often needlessly change und ,Niehtbewunderer* by ne EM. f Qe previously adopted) And chastised his opponents held it allowable to itio ie uere e names adopted er given by them. He actua
eriüeise the newly created genera of his contemporaries if he adopted
them or to a : h : . Pain dad the names to entirely different plants. In this way he monopolized his
UE RD RED DNE EE E ER D 3 5
that" Ipomoea reptans Poir.
a too lon » d mater of experience that most authors cut off always the tail of 8 author's citation, but. eut out nothing of the mid; therefore the place
i al author-citati leval according to the Paris Cod H ation. (legal according : e) has led and must lead to wrong citations, Moreover the name
In () in ( ) indieates only a shortened Synonym; but you never will find the legal Á ll synonym. Shortening of a synonym Brants no right to give it another place, Ims : ! ?4) "There
that I have altered here.
CXCVII
How far we may not be forced to tolerate this in Linné because of the necessity of a fixed foundation for nomenclature is a question, which perhaps merits more consideration than Kuntze has given if. But there is not such reason in the case of Linné imitators, and as the root of all evil in nomenclature, they should not be allowed to escape with impunity. Linné is not the only man who considered himself the autocrat of botanical nomenclature. Subsequently, would-be-despots and oligarchies have asserted this authority with great vigor. "There are those now, who asume a divine right to say what shall be and what, shall not be, and; while crying out at all changes by others, themselves often make changes at will; retaining only those names which they or their ancestors have approved and made current. :
In this connection Kuntze gives a list of the authors whom Linné slighted and whose names be 'rebaptised' and a number of examples of Linné's method. 'Two must be given, and they are not the worst: upon Cardamine lunaria L.— Lunaria aegyptica Juss. Adan- son based a new genus, Scopolia. Immediately on this discovery, *writes Medicus, Linné separated it again from Cardamine, recognizing it as a separate genus, but changed fhe name Scopolia to Ricolia. "Another case is Heisteria L. 1737, dedicated to Heister, a con- temporary. Heister afterwards ventured to remonstrate against Linné's shameful alterations in nomenclature" whereupon Linné chastised him by changing Heisteria to Muraltia (1767).
Section 5, entitled *'Inconsistencies of Linné and his contemporaries, and their alte- rations of their own names," continues the same subject, giving a large number of inter- esting examples.
Section 6 is headed "Brutal lawlessness of nomenclature after Linné until the be- ginning of the XIX century; Robert Brown etc.". The period treated of in this section might well be termed the feudal period of Botany. "After Linnés death" says Kuntze ... "anarchy broke out, as in other cases in history after the death of a reformer and dictator." There were on the one hand the heirs of Linné—-i. e. the editors of the successive edi- tions of his works, and on the other, a number of imitators of him, great Barons, as it were, none great enough to fill his place, and all more or less at war. Name-alteration went on pretty steadily now, and it is to this period that we are indebted for most of the pre-
* sent disorder in nomenclature. At this time was it that the habit of changing the species
names of à plant put in a new genus, which is now perpetuated by the *renewed Kew rule", was formed. Says Kuntze: "This, was the flowering time of botanical robber- knighthood, the followers of which, for a part, were able investigators, but respected no author's right".
His remarks on Robert Brown in this connection are especially interesting. He says: "He was a great botanist mit Allüren eines Dessolen".- o d "Except Linné, who, however was a reformer of nomenclature and System, and in zeal for their intro- duction often went too far, no author, relatively, has offered me so many opportunities to correét the names wrongfully introduced or preferred by him as Robert Brown." Under
which has done marked injustice to certain other botanists . . . . . [Salisbury for one;] Yes, one can say, that he has founded a school in unrighteousness of which many traces
Section 7 treats of "different conceptions of valid genus-formation." He distingui- shes and limits nomina nuda (names published without recognition) *So long," he says, 588 the plant is sufficiently known, there is need neither of a plate nor of a description. Only when recognition is impossible, is the name to be marked nomen tantum or nomen -udwm, etc. *Bentham and Hooker do great injustice to Salisbury by dissmissing with the words 'nomen tantum' etc. the names of valid genera founded by him and published without description, but with reference to well known types upon which they were foun- ded in a way that left no room for doubt. On the contrary, they carefully protect the na- mes in Wallieh's Catalogue, the application of which, he charges, is sometimes very hard to recognize. *'*One does not name the description, but the plant and defective diagnoses are often more perplexing than none at all."
We cannot blame Kuntze for remarking upon the injustice done to Salisbury. But in this ease (and it is the only one as far as 1 have found) he departs from his customary Strict interpretation of the rules. Common sense in doubtless on his side. But common sense differs considerably according to the person applying it; and Kuntze has warned us too many times against the slightest relaxation of the rules 35),
33) I beg your pardon, the mistake is not on my side. See S 46 of Paris Code and my note Nr. 11 page CLXXVII. A genus is poorly but sufficiently characterized by the citation of a well known species. Mr. Pound does not mention my distinction of nomina nuda and nomina seminuda.
CXCVIII
Seetion 8. *Name alterations by raising sections into genera and through linguistie changes," is the basis of some alterations in the international rules proposed by him. The subject will be considered later.
A very interesting section is section 9, entitled *«Homonymus a powerful cause of name-alteration and abiding source of danger to botanical nomenelature." Most of the ca- ses of homonymy arise from the repeated use of the same personal name, in the hope, apparently, that it will stick in some one place and some obscure man can be honored in the end. There are a goodly number however which have not even this semblance of an exeuse. Kuntze gives a list of one hundred and fifty personal genus-names which have been repeatedly and differently applied in this way; two of them to seven different groups, two to six groups and fourteen to five! As he says, this is a fearful list.
In order to furnish those who are desirous of honoring some person at all hazards at meaus of so doing without imperiling nomenclature he explains a number of devices by means of which a personal name can be made in so many ways that hereafter there should be no difficulty in providing even for such numerous families as the Smiths and Joneses. He gives a long list of precedents of endings, prefixes and combinations: some very good, some very bad, and a few so atrocious that even he is compelled to exclaim at them. Healso gives examples of anagrams and translations — some of them very good — and of *"zusammengezogene" personal names, of which Paulomagnusia O.K.isa fair exam- ple. But this is not all. He thinks the termination '*ago" when joined to a personal name very euphonious and gives some examples: Pritzelago O.K. To him *''ago" suggests "agere" and seems suitable to a compiler. So he would say: Steudelago, Píeifferago etc. An anatomist would get a "toma" attached to his name. Does this refer to the fact that the person honored would be likely to cut him after making such a name? Linné some- times attached inda to the generic name of an Indian plant. So inda, afra amra and asia he considers proper terminations for genera dedicated to travelers or botanists in India, Africa, Amerika and Asia. He makes for us on this theory Watsonamara O.K., Schwein- furthafra O.K. and many others. Fries made a genus *Acurtis" for M. A. Curtis. "This is all well enough for once, but Kuntze takes him up with ''Pasaecardoa" O.K. (for P. A. Saeeardo) and outdoes him with a suggested ''Sirhookera". I do not believe such a col- lection of monstrosities was ever brought together before, the names fairly pack two pages of this section. It would be better that every man he so "honors" be forgotten, than that his name be made ridiculous forever by being joined to '*carpum" or "fungus" after the manner of ,Peckifungus* O.K; *Henningsocarpum" O.K., ,,Philippimalva" O.K. ete. "The possibilities of the field he has opened up for us are indeed great, witness: Smithia; Smithago; Johnsmithotoma; Igsmithia (J. G. Smith); Smithialga; Smithodendrum. I dwell on this because it seems to me that botanical Latin is impure enough already without such gratuitous monstrosities. 'The rule against names formed from two languages almost reaches them; good taste certainly ought to condemn them. It may be well enough to call attention to precedents for the sake of those, who are determined to honor some per- son at all events, but like tracheotomy, they should be the last resort. —
Section 10 discusses the difficulties arising from the almost simultanoeus appear- ance of new publications, publications of uncertain date, incompleteness of libraries etc.
Section 11 is entitled *Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum and their neglect of the literature before Robert Brown". Kuntze is not the only one who has criticised Bentham for this (Britten's Journal of Botany 1888, p. 261), but Kuntze is especially severe upon him, not only for this, but for his method of changing species-names. He pays a high tribute to Bentham for his work in limiting and defining genera, but says (in English, $ 16): "Surely Bentham was a genius of botanists, therefore I admire him, but he was a great sinner in nomenclature, who worked stupendously, but did not loose time in looking out for the rights of older authors and priority of their given names. He was a little ignorant of the authors of the past century; he took for instance ...... Patriek Browne for ante-Linnean although this botanist has adopted (1756) the Linnean System of 1735 with little alteration In the Genera Plantarum he has for- gotten several thousands of generic names of Linnean and past-Linnean time. He opposed the new international rule so as not to be obliged to correct himself innumerable times." Elsewhere he says, speaking of Bentham and Hooker: "Their nomenclature is to be cen- sured not only because it is very incomplete as pointed out, but also because it builds wider upon the corrupt nomenclature of Robert Brown. 'The many inconsistencies and caprices in the choice of names in BHgp. is to be deplored.
, ,The truth of Kuntzes remarks will not be disputel. The English, as he says, ad- mit it, but reply with the characteristic answer, "in our country we like to do so". S0 too, they like to measure with yards, feed and inches. Science is international or rather
"" NH Tru
"
LAS 284 £.9—7 4
[7/3
£F;
Ls er m -
HORN J e -
CXCIX
supernational, and it is not to be kept back by the prejudices of any nation. We may expect English botanists to eling to the methods of the Raubritter" period for a long time to come. But the world is not to be ruled by the heirs of Robert Brown.
The next section 12, deals with the *Bequemlichkeitsmotiv as a hindrance to the restoration of rightful names". This *Bequemlichkeitsmotiv" is the excuse constantly put forward by those who do not like to take all the consequences of the rule of priority. But like other vague principles its operation is somewhat capricious, and in praetiee is only applied where it suits the inconvenience of those who follow it. Bentham and Hooker, says Kuntze, follow it very ineonsistently. In fact, he says, it is largely a patriotic motive, and they generally forget it iun the case of their countryman Lindley. He gives some examples of Lindleyan names restored by them, and continues: "Lindley was one of the above mentioned companions of the Brown-Smithian clique which worked with Bentham on Wallieh's catalogue 1829—31." He then speaks of the way in which authors in one country neglect foreign authors, and charges that the English and French * on the average overlook with great consistency everything written in the German language." Each nation too, "pushes to the front nolens volens its own authors", and he adds **we Germans are not entirely without this patriotic weekness." In these remarks he bas struck the key note of the *Bequemlichkeit^ excuse. Als he says, it is "directly opposed to the principle of order. If it is not given up, we shall revert to the condition before Linné, when each school or each land had a different nomenclature."
In section 18 he considers what should be the starting-point for genus-names. He claims that there is no generally recognized fixed starting-point. In general, Linné's last names are used together with those names given by his contemporaries which he adopted or did not rebaptize. But in some instances authors have gone back of his last names. Bentham and Hooker, he says used the 1767 Vienna-edition of Liuné's genera plantarum, which is a counterfeit and not al all revised by Linné36). Kuntze takes the editio prin- ceps of Linnés Systema Naturae (1735) as the starting-point for genera and explains his reasons at some length. In the first place he objects strongly to the citation of Tourne- fort for genera adopted from him by Linné. 1f Tournefort is cited, he says, why not Rivinus? And why not cite the authors between Tournefort and Linné whose names the latter adopted? It is, he says, making too great a leap to start with Tournefort, and then pass over all intermediate authors and start against with Linné. Some fixed point must be had and everything beyond rigidly excluded, or there will be no fixity in nomenclature. The citation of Tournefort arises, he says, from pietism and a little French patriotism. "Tournefort was shoved forward by DeCandolle, . . . .. but DeCandolle and his followers ought first to have troubled themselves about the generally neglected contemporaries of Linné, and have it yet to do before they make so long a leap backward."
The remainder of his argument is, in effect as follows. 'lhe genus-nomenclature before Linné was very crude. Barbarous vernacular names, double names, as Barba-Jovis, etc., names in opsis, pseudo etc. abounded to an intolerable extent. In his Flora Lapponica, Linné outlined to some extent, but only to some extent, the system and reform which he introduced in his Systema Naturae of 1735. After 1735 the changes which Linné made in genus-nomenclature were for the most part capricions and made to confound or punish his contemporaries. It can not be said that any of his work has been taken as the starting point. He made many changes for various reasons during his life and his pupils and editors took his latest changes and handed them down, though some of them have not been followed. 'The foundation of modern genus nomenclature was permanently laid in 1735. All changes thereafter where in the details only. For these reasons Kuntze claims ihat this edition is the "only one which has a rightful claim to be the starting-point. "There is" he says, "no rightful or moral ground for pushing aside the first and fonda- mental work of Linné.^ Accordingly he lays down two rules:
^1. Linné's Systema Naturae editio prima princeps, 1735, stands as the first consi- stently carried out Liunean system of nomenclature and system of genera; the work of 1753 for the first consistently carried out Linnean nomenclature for species."
As there is some doubt as to the exact time of the year at which the work of 1735 appeared, he adds: ^2. In order to have an undoubtedly firm basis and a certain point of time for the beginning of our nomenclature, I have cut out from competion all the publieations of other authors appearing in 1735 and bearing 1735 ou the title page, and have allowed it (the competition) to begin first with the end of 1735 — beginning of 1736, on the foundation of Linné's Systema I."
i Admitting that there is no *moral" ground for pushing aside the edition of 1735, |t remains to be seen how far there may mot be practical ground for so doing. "This
36) I have corrected here another mistake of translation.
€C
question he does not suffieiently consider. Many of Linné's later names, whatever motive may have let to their introduction, are great improvements upon his earlier ones, Hig last names have become firmly established, and there are good reasons for tolerating in him the founder of nomenelature, some things which we need not countenance in his suc- cessors. We can take Linnó's last names for the purpose of getting a fixed and permanent nomenclature without committing ourselves to submission to the joke of Robert Brown and his suecessors. But if authors go back to Linné's last names at all, there should be some fixed point beyond which they are not to go, and at which citation should stop. The adoption of the 1735 edition does not require as large a number of changes as one would suppose, indeed the number is relatively very small, and it certainly has the advan- tage of furnishing a certain unmistakable and eminently logical foundation for nomen- clature.
Section 14 is devoted to a number of proposed additions and amendments to the international rules, which make them more strict and definite and modify some of them in accordance with his views as explained in the preceding sections. 'They are of such length, that but a few can be noticed here.
He proposes to amend artiele 91 by striking out the words "higher or" and ad- ding at the end of the artiele *on elevation of a group the author who founded the group Should be cited, either alone with a $ mark preceding, or with the other author behind in the second position." The last is of course to avoid what he calls *seduction." - His object in making the change is to get a citation that will indicate clearly the origin of the name, so that there can be no doubt asto its validity against intermediate names. But he makes a distinction between the elevation and the reduction of a group, claiming that his rule should apply to the former only, aud that in the latter case the correction only should be cited, and he argues their at some length. His reason is that to extend the rule to both cases would encourage undue haste and radicalism. So on the other hand, it may be said that his restricted rule put a premium upon undue conservation, which some- times does not demand much deliberation. His idea seems to be that a writer should feel that he describes species under new genera at his peril. He is somewhat inconsistent with his principles to allow any possibility of confusion for the purpose of chastising genus-mongers; and it cannot be denied that intermediate names must be guarded against as much in one case as in the other. Throughout the book he is conspicuously hostile to genus-division. In this instance he seems to have carried his zeal too far.
In article 60 he proposes to strike out paragraphs 3 and 4, which he adds to ar- ticle 28; and to substitute 11 paragraphs giving forms to be rejected. Of these 10 is "double genus-names," with three exceptions however, of which (b) is *personal names put together whieh result in a flowing word." "This is not exactly consistent. How much worse are double genus-names than "flowing words" (Ü like "Sirhookera," Hallo- muellera," etc.37). His eleventh paragraph is: *In case of halves separable ancient genus- names, if the first word is valid and capable of standing alone and is not the name of a higher group, then the first word stands. Accordingly he gives us **Bursa" for Capsella, and our common weed he writes «Bursa pastoris Wigg."
To article 66 he adds: *Names which rest upon unlike orthography or are only to be distinguished by the presence or addition of final syllables, only stand as different
?7) Mr. Pound may not forget that I was obliged to allow exceptions according to the established custom (see 8 4 of Paris Code); otherwise I would have had to put aside old introduced and other current names as: Quisqualis, Dacc- «urea, FPloscopa, Cornucopiae, and personal ones: Paulowilhelmia, Gonza- lagunia, Petrosavia, Petrosimonea, Savogothea, Saxvofridericia, Sebastiano- schaueria, Acurtis, Ureskinnera, Carludovica, Carlowrightia, Gomortega, Asagraya, Jeanpaulia, Juanulloa, Antoschmidlia etc; and of mixed etymo- logy: ANeohallia, Neobaronia, Pseudolmedia, Pseudoleskia, Parabouchesia, Diswarea, Chamaesaracha , Duforrestia, Microschwenckia , Cyphokentia, Leioclusia, Melioschinzia , Nesogordonia; Muellerargia; Silvianthus, Ger- rardanthus, Dalfowrodendrum, Deccariodendron, Mannoglotlis, ( "ayophytum, Pringleophytum, FEllisiophyllum, Schmitzomia, FHoeperocharis, € aziostelma, Pleomassaria and many others compounds with Neo, phytum, dendrum, anthus. How would I have been blamed, if my new rule had become so sentimental as to put aside all these current genera-names.
XA À et IA
NWNMT T
CCI
words, when they differ in one unlike consonant standing between two vowels or lacking in one of the words." He then proposes an addition to the effect that vernaeular names and the younger of two pseudohomonyms (e. g. .4piwm L, and .Apiíos Moench, within his rule) he adopted and latinized or altered, as the case may. be, by the addition of two or three letters; e. g. Vochy Aubl. he makes '*Vochysia" Aubl. corr. Juss.) .Apios, * Apiosus Haller corr. OK." He lays down some exceptions and additions, which are quite strictly formulated, and finally proposes: *Permissible name corrections do not warrant the citation of the correcting author in the first place, either for genera or for the names of species to be joined tberewith." He also lays it down that names like Heurckia and Vanheurckia, Candollea and Decandollea must stand as distinct. J believe J am justified in saying, ho- wever, that Saecardia (or as he writes it Saccardoa) and Pasaccardoa or Marckia and La- marckia (both of which stand under his rnle.) are much more likely to be confused in practice than .4píos and Apiwm; certainly more so than Capnodes and Capnodiwm, which conflict under his rule, so that he rejects the latter. Besides his corrections *(as Apiosus) are fatal to" the meaning of a name, and as a rule add nothing to its sound. It is all very well to have strict rules here as elsewhere, but there is room in this place for the appli-
" eations of a little common sense.
A suggestion which he makes for a new article is interesting, and will not seem unreasonable to those who have tried to deal with works in Polish or Hungarian which sometimes appear. It *is Article 69. Publications are only admissible for competition for valid nomenclature so long and so far as they are printed in Latin characters and appear in the Latin, English, French or German languages; but for gothic characters this has no retrospective force". To be strictly just this should include Italian 38), in other respects the rule is desirable.
Section 15, additions, etc., to Pritzel's Thesaurus and 8 16, a vigorous and well written article in English on "Modern English Nomenclature" close the introduction.
The revision itself follows, the genera in each family being taken up alphabetically. — Details of all kinds abound in notes, etc. and are often very interesting (e. g., on proper spelling, on botanical Latin etc.) But no confusion is produced by them or the revisions of genus-limits and monograph seattered through the work. One thing might be mentioned. He unites Aster and Solidago and intermediate groups in the genus .Aster, giving quite a full discussion of his reasons. — He also work out the proper species-name combinations whenever he changes a genus-name. Many things might be commented upon, did space permit, but the introduction indicates the nature of all the changes.
Just what the effect of the work will be cannot be foretold. Many of the sugge- stions will hardly be adopted. Others, is to be hoped, will be. As the most thorough piece of work yet done in a direction now receiving much attention it must have some influence. Certainly the admirable discussion in the introduction of the defects of our present nomenclature and the causes of them cannot fail to have con- siderable effect, and constitutes the most valuable part of the work. "The author appears in the introduction as a keen and severe, yet on occasion appreciative critic, and if we are to believe his statement that he worked from thirteen to fourteen hours a day for the last three years, no one can charge him with haste or say as he does of Durand, that he has not put time enough upon his work.
One acquires à good deal of prejudice against the book on first glancing it over, which disappears on a more thorough reading of the introduction. Paradox as it is, the only way to attain an unchangable and uniform nomenclature is to make changes now with an iron hand. *Unambiguous rules and priority," as he ever says, are the only sound principles by which we can bring order in [to] nomenclature. The changes necessitated by priority should . . . . be made as promptly and as thoroughly as possible, and — as we may wish it — if possible at once, in one book.
1. Márz 1892. (Georges Poirault in Louis Morot's Journal de botani- que, supplément pag. XVII/XX:
Otto Kuntze. .Revisio Generum Plantarum . . . l'auteur, qui a fait un voyage de deux ans autour du monde, a recueilli d'importantes collections botaniques comprenant
?5) If Mr. Pound will propose to the next competent congress this lan- guage to be included in $ 69, I should not oppose, but I fear that most botanists would not agree therewith.
CCII
plus de 7000 espéces, parmi lesquelles un grand nombre de nouveautés ou de plantes peu connues. Le classement d'un pareil herbier, qui lui a demandé prés de sept années de travail, a été l'occasion de longues études sur la nomenclature des plantes, tant phanéro- games que eryptogames, et le livre publié aujourd'hui par M. Otto Kuntze est à la fois le rósumé de ses explorations botaniques et de ses recherches bibliographiques. Il est à la fois l'un et l'autre; mais l'auteur arrive à introduire tant de changements dans la dé. nomination des genres et des especes que son oeuvre de collecteur et de monographe, oeuvre considérable en soi, disparait, noyée dans l'oeuvre du réformateur. C'est de cette deruiére que nous allons d'abord chercher à donner une idée.
Il y a deux manieéres bien différentes d'envisager la nomenclature. A s'en tenir au point de vue historique, la seule regle pour l'adoption d'un nom est la reconnaissance équi- table des droits des auteurs qui ont fondé les espéces et les genres, une plante devant porter le nom de l'auteur le plus ancien. Mais l'applieation rigoureuse de cette regle présentant dans la pratique de sérieuses difficultés, surtout pour les anciens auteurs, les botanistes ont fixé d'un commun accord une date au-delà de laquelle on ne devrait pas remonter. C'est celle de l'apparition du Systema Naturae de Linné (1735). Ainsi, soit dit en passant, se sont trouvés condamnés à l'oubli la plupart des noms de "T'ournefort qui, bien avant Linné, avait distingué des espéces décrites plus tard par le naturaliste d'Upsal et qu'il signa de son nom. "Toutefois bien des dénominations adoptées par Linné dans la premiere édition du Systema ont été modifiées par lui-móme dans ses ouvrages postérieurs ct beaucoup des noms ainsi changés on été consacrés par l'usage. Faut-il les condamner et revenir à la dénomination primitive? Nous allons voir tout à l'heure M. O. Kuntze répondre oui, tandis qu'un grand nombre de botanistes, en vertu d'un principe bien différent de celui de la vérité historique, s'y opposent absolument.
Ceux-là font observer, avee raison, que ce qui importe c'est que la móme plante ne Soit pas désignée sous deux noms, quele principe de la vérité historique, respectable sans doute, n'est que secondaire devant la nécessité de simplifier autant qte possible la nomen- clature et que c'est apporter un grand trouble dans le langage botanique que de remplaecr un nom en usage depuis un siéele et davantage par un autre, plus ancien il est. vrai, mais totalement oublié. Voilà cependant ce que M. Kuntze n'hésite pas à faire. ll reprend, par exemple, le nom linnéen de Dryadaea de préférence à celui de Dryas du méme auteur, parce que le premier date de 1735, tandis que le second ne figure que daus l'édition de 1737. Pour des raisons analogues le genre Spirogyra Link 1820 doit s'appeler Conjugata Vaucher 1803; il faut remplacer Closterium Nitzehe 1837 par .Arthrodia Raf. 1813; de méme Collema Wigg. 1780 par Gabwra Adanson 1763; Coryne Tulasne 1865 par Chloro- spleniella Karsten; Elaphomyces Nees 1820 par Lycoperdastrum Hall. 1742; Clitopilus Fries 1821 par Orcella Batarra 1755; Astragalus L. 19737 par Tragacantha L. 1735; Linnaea Gronov. par Obolaria Siegesbeck, etc., eto. En pareil cas, il ny à jamais qu'échange de noms, ou plus exactement remplacement d'un nom connu par un inconnu; mais ailleurs voici ce qui va se passer. Lorsque, dans deux groupes éloignés, deux genres on été dé- signés par le móme nom, c'est le nom le plus ancien qui doit rester; alors, l'autre genre nétant plus dénommé, il faut lui trouver un nom. Pareil changement devient nécessaire quand deux noms ne different que par la terminaison. C'est ainsi que Syncephalum ayant été appliqué (1837) par M. de Candolle à un groupe de Composées, le genre de Mucorinées Syncephalis Van Tieghem et Le Monnier devra s'appeler aujourd'hui Vam Tüeghemia 39) Otto Kuntze.
Ainsi exposé à créer des noms nouveaux pour les plantes débaptisces, M. Kuntze ne veut pas abandonner la nomenclature à la fantaisie des auteurs; il pose des 1égles générales pour la confection des noms, avec des exemples à l'appui.
Les noms de savants illustres tout indiqués par l'amitié ou la reconnaissance peuvent étre appliqués aux plantes qui ont eu la mauvaise fortune de perdre leur nom de genre; mais il ne faut pas que l'hommage adressé à une personnalité scientifique, par exemple, vienne à s'égarer en route, ce qui, avec des noms comme Jenri DBaillonia39) OK. (rempla- cant Cometia HBn.) et Paulo Magnusia39) OK., ne saurait vraiment se produire. Lorsque deux botanistes de méme nom habitent des villes différentes, on arrive à supprimer l'équi- voque résultaut de l'homonymie par la simple addition du nom de ville: ainsi Lippomuel-
33?) Je n'avais pas écrit ces 4 mots séparément, mais uni chaeun en un mot: Vantieghemia, Henribaillonia , Paulomagnusia, Sirhookera. et je n'ai suivi dans ce eas que des anciens auteurs, par exemple: Vanrheedia Plumier, Vanhallia R. & &, Dupatya Vell. (non Patya Neck., Deroemera Rehb. (non Roemera al.), Janraya Plum., Isodrogalvia R. & P. etc.; voyez ma note Nr. 37
CCIIH
lera OK. et Hailomuellera OK. ne permettront pas de confondre le bryologue de Halle avee lhabile observateur qui nous a fait connaitre Aant de faits relatifs à la fécondation des plantes par les insectes. Ce systeme de dénomination binaire permet de tenir compte des titres et des qualités des auteurs car si Sir Hookera OK.39) — qu'un Anglais pourrait bien remplacer quelque jour par Sir Joseph Hookera — est conforme au respect le plus striet, si Urbanisol OK. (remplacant T'ithonia Desf.) a je ne sais quel reflect d'Orient, il est d'autres noms proposés par M. Otto Kuntze en vue de nous rappeler les oceupations ordinaires des différents botanistes. Ainsi les suffixes ago devront ótres ajoutées aux nonis des compilateurs: Pritzelago OK., Pfeifferago OK., tandis qu'il va de soi que adlkofero- toma OK., indique que M. Radlkofer s'est distingué par des travaux anatomiques. ll est une autre série d'innovations proposés par M. Kuntze et qui, à défaut d'autres avantages, aurait du moins celui de nous apprendre d'oà vient une plante. Ce systéme n'est guére applicable qu'aux genres localisés, mais en pareil eas il est précieux, et si des noms comme Sehweinfurthafra OK., Muelleramra OK., Hasskarlinda OK., avaient chance d'étre adoptés, on verrait de suite que le premier de ces genres est africain, le second américain, le troi- siéme spéeial à la péninsule indienne. Honorer du móme coup un voyageur célebre et nous apprendre la distribution géographique des plantes c'est bien employer son temps. Cependant l'auteur, qui a entrevu sans doute l'inconvénient de l'application de son systeme aux plantes de Madagascar, ne veut pas que la botanique se charge de mots indéfinis comme ceux dont les chimistes n'ont pas craint d'affubler certains composés organiques. Aussi a-t-il fixé le nombre des syllabes qu'un nom re devra pas dépasser, et ce nombre est de six au maximum. Comme JMaximowiesasia sortirait des limites permises, on conservera du mot juste ce qu'il faudra pour laisser intacte la gloire du regretté monographe de la flore japonaise, on dira Maximowasia OK. et la géographie n'y perdra rien. M. Kuntze excelle à arranger les choses le plus simplement et le plus brievement possible: le genre PAyllac- tinia devant disparaitre pour des raisons exposées par l'auteur à la page 354 de son ouv- rage, il propose le genre Passacardoa OK. dans lequel le lecteur n'hésitera pas à recon- naitre P. A. Saecardo, hommage d'un auteur exact, mais pressé.
Ainsi, pour differentes raisons et par des procédés divers, M. O. Kuntze est arrivé à changer 1074 noms de genres et de ce fait c'est environ trente mille plantes qui recoivent des noms nouveaux. C'est beaucoup, mais il parait que c'est au plus juste. De ses explorations l'auteur a rapporté 9 genres entierement nouveaux, 152 espéces et
plusieurs centaines de formes nouvelles dont il donne les diagnoses dans ce méme ouvrage
ou l'on ne trouvera pas moins de 109 monographies de genre. C'est done un travail con- sidérable et il est à soubaiter qu'on oublie le novateur pour donner au monographe toute la considération à laquelle il a droit.
La grande majorité des naturalistes de nos jours sacrifient aisément toutes les autres considérations à stabilité de la nomenclature; ils estiment que le langage scientifique est sur- tout une question d'utilité pratique et non pas, du moins au méme degré, une question d'esthétique et de sentiment.^ Ainsi s'exprime M. Malinvaud sur l'opportunité des change- ments à introduire dans la nomenclature. Trop d'auteurs se sont ralliés à la déclaration du savant et judicieux secrétaire général de la Société botanique de France pour que M. O, Kuntze n'ait pas beaucoup de peine à faire adopter les modifications qu'il propose, si légitimes qu'elles lui paraissent.
2. Máürz 1892 Dr. Carl Fritseh in Sitzungsberichte der k. k. zool.- bot. Gesellschaft in Wien XLII S. 24- 29:
O. Kuntze, Revisio generum plantarum. Es war im Jahre 1879, als O. Kuntze dureh die weitgehenden reformatorischen Ideen, die er in seiner »Methodik der Speciesbesehreibung^*) entwickelte, die Aufmerksamkeit der Systematiker auf sich zog. Kuntze war damals durch die Bearbeitung der aussergewóhnlich formenreichen Gattung Rubus auf den Standpunkt gekómmen, dass der bisher festgehaltene Speciesbegriff unhaltbar sei, und er schlug nun vor, denselben durch verschiedene andere Begriffe, wie ,Gregiform", Singuliform^ etc. zu ersetzen. Die damals von Kuntze gemachten Vorsehlüge sind nicht angenommen worden, weil sie die Nomenclatur sowohl, als auch das System nicht verein- facht, sondern nur noch mehr verwirrt hütten, und der Verfasser ist inzwischen selbst zu dem alten Speeciesbegriff zurückgekehrt, wenn er denselben auch in der Regel weiter fasst als die Mehrzahl dcr jetzt lebenden Systematiker dies zu thun gewohnt ist.
^) O. Kuntze, Methotik der Speciesbeschreibuug uud Rubus. Monographie der ein- faehblütterigen und krautigen Brombeeren. Leipzig 1879.
CCIV
Wurde Kuntze schon damals, von einer speciellen Studie ausgehend, zu allgemeinen Fragen und deren Beantwortung gedrüngt, so verhiült es TP Mo mit dem vorliegenqey, bedeutungsvollen Werke. Der Verfasser hatte in den Sie Ziger Jahren eine Weltreigg unternommen und von derselben ein grosses Pflanzenmaterial mitgebracht, dessen Bearbeij. tung ibn begreiflicher Weise mehrere Jahre hindureh beschüftigto. . Selbstverstándlieh fand sich auch gar manches Neue in der reichhaltigen Collection: 152 neue Arten*), 9 uode Gattungen, die alle im vorliegenden Werke beschrieben sind. Bei der Untersuchung und Bestimmung des Materials ergab sieh oft die Nothwendigkeit, eine oder die andere Arten. gruppe oder ganze Gattung monographisch zu revidiren , oder auch die Grenzen ZWischen verwandten Gattungen zu prücisiren, schlecht begründete Gattungen einzuziehen u, dgl, In dieser Hinsicht birgt das Buch so viele Beitrüge zur systematischen Botanik, dass es dadurch allein schon ein wichtiges Nachschlagebuch für jeden Systematiker ist,
Die Hauptaufgabe aber, die sich der Verfasser in dem vorliegenden Werke gestellt hat, ist die Revision der Nomeneclatur sümmtlicher Phanerogamen- und vieler Kryptogamen- Gattungen auf Grund des Prioritütsgesetzes. Durch diese Hevision hat die erschreclende Anzahl von mehr als 1000 Gattungen ihren gebrüuchlichen Namen &ndern müssen, Dag Verdienst, welches sich Kuntze durch diese Nomencelatur- Forschungen erworben, ist in den Augen derjenigen, die in der strengen Durchführung von Nomenclatur-Regeln das einzige mügliehe Ende der heutzutage herrschenden Confusion sehen, ein ausserordentlich grosses, wührend natürlich Andere, die derlei historische Forschungen für Zeitvergeudung halten, es sehr bedauern werden, dass der scharfsinnige Verfasser so viel Mühe und Zeit auf eine so secundüre Sache, wie die Nomenclatur, verschwendet habe. **)
Leider existirt. in der Gegenwart nicht nur der Gegensatz zwischen den Anhüngern und den Feinden der Nomenclaturgesetze im Allgemeinen, sondern es gibt auch noch ver- schiedene Principien, nach welchen die Autoren die Nomenclatur richtig stellen wollen, In Bezug auf die Nomenclatur der Arten besteht ein scharfer Gegensatz zwischen jenen, welche den àáltesten Artnamen auch dann anwenden, wenn er ursprünglieh mit einem anderen Gattungsnamen verknüpft war, z. B. Ceratocephalus testiculatus Freyn (1888) 2 Ranunculus testiculatus Crantz (1763) — Ceratocephalus orthoceras DC. (1818), und jenen, welche nur den ültesten Speciesnamen in derselben Gattung gebrauchen. Unter den deutschen Botanikern dez Gegenwart folgen nur wenige dem letzteren Princip, so z. B. Beck, der in seiner ,Flora von Niederósterreich* demgemáss den DeCandolle'sehen Namen für die eben als Beispiel erwühnte Art in Anwendung bringt. In England dagegen ist dieses Prineip allgemein üblieh. Kuntze wendet sich gleich in den ersten Seiten scharf gegen dieses
| Verfahren und widerlegt die Argumente, welche für letzteres angeführt zu werden