BOTANY!! Dr. Kuntze's "Nomenclatur-Studien."-Dr. Kuntze's latest contribution to the nomenclature problem is in the form of a reply to certain criticisms of Pfitzer upon his alterations of names in the Orchidaceae, Pfitzer's criticisms are to be found in Engler's Jahrbuecher XIX, 1–28. Kuntze answers him in the Bulletin of the Boissier Herbarium, II, No. 7, issued in July, 1894, in an article entitled Nomenclatur-Studien. While this article was provoked by the strictures of Pfitzer and deals principally with the nomenclature of the orchids, it is of especial interest to American botanists on account of some criticisms of two rules adopted in this country. The first section of the article deals with names applied by Thouars to the orchids, which Pfitzer would reject. Dr. Kuntze discusses the matter thoroughly, although he had already gone over the ground in 1891 (Rev. Gen., II, 645-650), and certainly makes a convincing argument. In the course of his reply to Pfitzer on this point, he is led to restate his position on the question of "species-majority vs. placepriority," and to criticize the rule adopted by American botanists. This is done in the second section. Section II, entitled "priority in place at all events and Article 55," is one of considerable importance. Dr. Kuntze in his Coder Emendatus (Rev. Gen., III, 1, CCCCV) proposes the following additions to article 55 of the Paris Code (I quote from his English text): "A deviation from strict priority is necessary for genera published on the same day and united afterwards: (1) "If they got no species at their first publication, the genus name to which in 1753 or afterwards was put the first specific name is legitimate. (2) "If they got also their first species on the same day, the genus name having received most species on that day must be preferred ". . . . Instead of this criterion of "species-majority," American botanists have taken priority of place in the book in which both names were puòlished. This criterion is undoubtedly simple, easy of application, and one obviating all discussions to which the application of the other might give rise. But Dr. Kuntze proceeds to make some applications 'Edited by Prof. C. E. Bessey, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska. 2 Read before the Botanical Seminar of the University of Nebraska, Sept. 22, 1894. He of the rule which, as he says, operate as a reductio ad absurdum. makes a list of genera subject to the operation of the rule, taken only from Linne's Species of 1753, and including good sized genera only. From this list it appears that the American rule will require the use of Phaca instead of Astragalus-involving the change of 1300 names— of Sarothra for Hypericum, and of Amygdalus for Prunus. In his list, taken only from the 1753 edition of the Species plantarum, and not an exhaustive one, the American rule will alter the names of 20 genera and 4600 species. None of these are affected by the species-majority rule; Phaca, which appears on page 755 of the Species above Astragalus, has there but 2 or 3 species, while Astragalus has 33. So Pirus on page 479 with 4 species, would have to yield to Sorbus on page 477 with 2-necessitating a change of 55 species at the present time. Are American botanists prepared to follow this rule consistently? Section III is entitled "Compulsory Index for Plant-names." Dr. Kuntze points out that the enormous increase in botanical literature (there are 7000 titles a year at the present time), has made it impossible for any one to go over everything page by page as botanists could do formerly, and that what would have been gross carelessness at one time is almost a necessity now. He therefore proposes for discussion an article to the effect that articles, magazines and works, unless they have an index of names, including synonyms, to each volume, shall not be considered. It is certainly desirable that every work be well indexed. A book without an index, especially in these unsettled times when no one knows where anything will be placed to-morrow, is as good as sealed. But we may well doubt whether the corrective proposed is not too severe. Such penalties are not readily enforceable; and in the future, should a reaction set in against the rule, as usually happens with arbitrary rules of the sort, it would result in no little confusion by reason of the scope given for interference with established nomenclature. The next two sections deal with some rejections of names made by Pfitzer. One point is of interest. Pfitzer in rejecting Kuntze's name Sirhookera takes occasion to make fun of it, a sort of objection to which, it must be confessed, too many of Dr. Kuntze's names are liable. Incidentally he compares it to "Amtsgerichtsrathschultzia." Dr. Kuntze, as usual, comes back at him with a long list of such names coined by others, which must stand without doubt. And he points out in addition that Pfitzer retains a number of names with du, de, O', and Van prefixes, which are not dissimilar to Sir in Sirhookera. As far as the validity of such names goes, Dr. Kuntze is doubtless quite right. That they are not to be;commended and that we have far too many already without any fresh creations of the same sort, is readily apparent from an inspection of the list which he cites in his justification. name. Section VI is devoted to a discussion, apropos of certain changes made by Pfitzer, of the "once a synonym always a synonym" rule. This rule is one which commends itself to all who have had anything to do with nomenclature. In their determination to confer upon some one the honor of a genus dedicated to his memory--a doubtful honor since it has been so frightfully abused--botanists have multiplied homonyms in some cases to an incredible extent. The rule seems to have been "if at first you don't succeed," try again indefinitely till you succeed in making the name stick. In Section 9 of the introduction of his Revisio Generum, Dr. Kuntze referred to this practice as an "abiding source of danger to botanical nomenclature." And in the same place he gives a list of 150 personal genus names which have been repeated in this manner, two seven times, two six times, and fourteen five times. One of the most confusing results of this species of synonyms is the condition of oscillation in which it often places a A recent case may serve as an example. In his monograph of the Onagrariae in the Pflanzenfamilien, Dr. Raimann in subdividing the genus Oenothera, revived Spach's genus Kneiffia. This name is one year older than Kneiffia of Fries, so that K. setigera Fr. must have a new name. But supposing future monographers should differ with Raimann as to the limitation of Oenothera and Kneiffia Spach should become a synonym once more, then, according to the ordinary rule, we should have to restore Kneiffia Fr., and the new name would serve only to swell the crowded ranks of synonyms. In this way the name of a genus of fungi could be kept in a state of oscillation for an indefinite period, depending all the while on the views held by phanerogamists as to the limitations of a genus of flowering plants. This is a state of affairs which mycologists cannot be expected to tolerate, and can result only in disregard on the part of monographers of the rules which permit such things. Many similar cases might be cited. It is apparent, then, that some rule is necessary by which this difficulty of genus-names in a state of indefinite suspension can be obviated. The plan which at once suggests itself is to invalidate all subsequent homonyms, so that after a name has been once used it cannot be applied to another group. This is done by the "once a synonym, always a syno nym" rule. But Dr. Kuntze, while recognizing the necessity of some such rule, points out that if given retroactive force, the rule in question will involve us in no little difficulty. He gives a list of 200 generic names, all personal names, which must be rejected under the rule, and states that an exhaustive list would include from 500 to 600 generic names and involve about 7000 species. To this formidable number, should be added a large number of species which will be affected by the application of the rule to specific names. Not only is the rule open to this objection, but Dr. Kuntze makes the further point that, like all retrospective legislation, it does great injustice to past workers who knew no such rule. He, therefore, objects strenuously to any retroactive application of it. But, on the other hand, he recognizes the necessity of making provision for cases like the one detailed above, and he has a suggestion which is well worth considering. In his Codex Emendatus(Rev. Gen. III, 1, CCCXIII), he proposes the following addition to Article 60 (I quote from his English text): "Existing homonyms invalidate such homonyms as are in future competitory, or newly established, or renewed." That is, he proposes that the rule be applied to all future cases, and that a name valid now shall not in the future be superseded by any revived homonym. That would obviate the dif ficulty suggested in regard to Kneiffia above, and would certainly accomplish all of what is intended by the American rule, without necessitating so many alterations. Dr. Kuntze points out in the present article the impossibility of any permanent nomenclature in large genera without some rule against the revival of homonyms. As an instance he mentions the genus Panicum. He says that in working over the species of this genus in his collections "when I found an older name for a species, there were generally also homonyms of other species forthcoming; about which, however, one did not know whether they were valid or not." The only solution of this is a rule which makes a synonym once a synonym for all time. Whether this rule should be made retroactive, or should be applied only to future cases, i. e. to prevent the renewal of existing homonyms and the creation of new ones, is a question which must be decided by those who, from their investigation of the matter, are competent to pass upon it. Dr. Kuntze's suggestion seems to be a wise one and seems to cover all that is required. The remainder of the article is taken up with the nomenclature of the orchids, and a concluding section relating to a future congress. Dr. Kuntze has been subjected to a great deal of criticism, some of it unnecessarily severe, though his controversial methods are not always calculated to placate his opponents. But whatever may be thought of some of his suggestions, we can have little sympathy with those who, as Pfitzer seems inclined to do, charge him with wanton alterations or selfish motives. On the contrary, there is every reason to accept his statement that he was led into the work of reforming nomenclature in the course of the investigation of his collections, a natural thing when dealing with plants collected in every quarter of the globe, which would bring out the defects of our present nomenclature in a most striking manner. After all his work has but served to bring vividly before us what all were dimly conscious of before. Every man for himself was the principal rule of nomenclature in practice. We must at least admire Dr. Kuntze's persistence in endeavoring to bring about uniformity and a better state of things. ROSCOE POUND. Notes on the Trees of Northern Nebraska.-These notes apply to the region embraced in Antelope, Holt, Boyd, Rock, Brown, Keya Paha, Cherry, Sheridan, Dawes, and Sioux Counties. In the last three my observations have been much more limited, and, I doubt not, need extension and revision. They are simply good as far as they go. The country is composed of sandhills interspersed with small lakes, ponds and streams, hay-flats in the moister valleys, and dry valleys between the rows of sandhills, with stretches of dry, firm table-lands, usually abruptly separated from the sandhill portions by a deep cañon stream. With few exceptions, the trees are confined to these cañons, which branch out into the hill-sides in long reaches, some dry, others worn by unfailing spring brooks or "creeks," as they are generally called. There is good reason to believe that this treeless region was not always thus. On the tops of some of the sandhills have been found decaying trunks of Pine and Red Cedar buried deep in sand, bearing witness to a different condition of moisture in years gone by. In common with most observers, I think, I attribute the change to the destructive prairie fires that have swept over this region from time immemorial. They form one of the chief obstacles, to-day, to the regeneration of the land. The deep cañons are lined, when dry, from summit to base, with Pinus ponderosa scopulorum Engelm. A few scattering specimens are found extending several hundred feet upon the neighboring table. When the base of the cañon is wet, the Pine is found only above the line of moisture. It plants its feet in the gray magnesian, |