[reprinted from the BULLETIN OF PHARMACY, DECEMBER, 1892. 
BOTANY AT THE ROCHESTER MEETING OF THE 
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE AD- 
VANCEMENT OF SCIENCE. 
This meeting of the A. A. A. S. may doubtless be 
recorded as the most important, from a botanical stand- 
point, of the entire series. Up to the present time the 
botanical work proper of the Association has been per- 
formed as a part of the proceedings of Section F., 
Biology. The facilities thus offered were long ago 
found to be unsatisfactory to the visiting botanists, and 
they established the "Botanical Club of the A. A. A. S.," 
in which the more strictly botanical interests received 
special attention. Notwithstanding this, which might be 
denominated as an "overflow" provision, the botanists 
have found themselves becoming more and more 
cramped for time and facilities, and during the past year 
it was determined to make an effort to have a separate 
Section on Botany established. When the question was 
proposed at the Rochester meeting, the objection was 
made that the papers on zoology would probably not be 
sufficient to occupy the time of the session. It was also 
objected that many biological papers could not properly 
be referred to zoology or to botany. These objections 
were met by proposing that the two sections should hold 
one or more joint sessions at each meeting for the con- 
sideration of such papers. After a careful canvass the 
arrangement was made, and at the next meeting of the 
Association there will be both a Section in Botany 
and one The Botanical Club will still be 
continued, and it is not doubted that the papers pre- 
sented will be sufficient to fully occupy the time of both 
organizations. Although the botanical papers read, both in the Biological Section and in the Botanical Club, were 
of much interest and value, it is fair to say that their 
combined importance was not so great as that of the 
action of the Botanical Club in reference to botanical 
nomenclature, of which a special report will be found 
below. The botanical papers read at this meeting are 
enumerated, as follows : 
2 
BEFORE THE BIOLOGICAL SECTION. 
Notes on Ranunculus repens and its Eastern North 
American allies, by N. L. Britton. 
Notes on a monograph of the North American 
species of Lespedeza, by N. L. Britton. 
The Root System of Mikania scandens, by W. W. 
Rowlee. 
Preliminary comparison of the Hepatic Flora of 
Boreal and Sub-boreal regions, by L. M. Underwood. 
Notes on Maize, by G. Macloskie. 
Spikes of Wheat bearing abnormal spikelets, by W. 
J. Beal. 
A study of the relative Lengths of the Sheaths and 
Internodes of Grasses, for the purpose of determining to 
what extent this is a reliable specific character, by W. J. 
Beal. 
Adaptation of Seeds to facilitate Germination, by 
W. W. Rowlee. 
Bacteriological Investigations of Marine Waters and 
the Sea Floor, by H. L. Russell. 
Sketch of the Flora of Death Valley, California, by 
F. V. Coville. 
How the application of Hot Water to Seed Increases 
the Yield, by J. C. Arthur. 
Heredity of Acquired Characters, by M. Miles. 
On the supposed Correlation of Quality in Fruits- 
a study in evolution, by L. H. Bailey. 
Non parasitic Bacteria in Vegetable Tissue, by H. 
L. Russell. Noteson Yellow Pitch-pine-Pinusrigida, Mill., var. 
lutea, Kell. n. v., by W. A. Kellerman. 
Germination at Intervals of Seeds treated with 
Fungicides, by W. A. Kellerman. 
The Fertilization of Pear Flowers, by M. B. Waite. 
The Fertilization of the Fig and Caprification, by C. 
V. Riley. 
A comparative study of the Roots of Ranuncu- 
laceae, by F. B. Maxwell (presented by W. R. Dudley). 
The Conditions which determine the Distribution of 
Bacteria in the Water of Rivers, by J. H. Stoller. 
Notes on Daucus Carota, by C. W. Hargitt. 
Geographic Relationship of the Flora of the high 
Sierra-Nevada, California, by F. V. Coville. 
Variation in Native Ferns, by W. M. Beauchamp. 
Life-for-ever Eradicated by a Fungous Disease, by 
D. G. Fairchild. 
Otto Kunze's Changes in Nomenclature of North 
American Grasses, by G. Vasey. 
Revised Nomenclature of the Arborescent Flora of 
the United States, by B. E. Fernow and G. B. Sudworth. 
Characteristics and Adaptations of Desert Vegeta- 
tion, by F. V. Coville. 
Shrinkage of Woods as observed under the micro- 
scope, by F. Roth. 
Peziza sclerotium, by L. H. Pammel. 
Temperature and some of its Relations to Plant 
Life, by L. H. Pammel. 
Pleospora of Tropceolum majus, by B. D. Halsted. 
Secondary Spores of Anthracnoses, by B. D. Halsted. 
A Bacterium of Phaseolus, by B. D. Halsted. 
The Significance of Cleiostogamy, by T. Meehan. 
3 
BEFORE THE BOTANICAL CLUB. 
The use of the terms Range, Locality, Station, and 
Habitat, by F. V. Coville. 
Travels in Paraguay, and its Flora, by Thomas 
Morong. A variety of Polypodium vulgare, L., new to America, 
by L. M. Underwood. 
Symbiotic Growths in the Roots of Ranunculacese, 
by F. B. Maxwell (presented by W. R. Dudley). 
Some rare and interesting Fungi from Florida, by 
W. T. Swingle. 
Anatomy as a Special Department of Botany, by 
Dr. Emily L. Gregory. 
Observations upon certain species of Asclepiadaceae 
as Insect Traps, by Thomas Morong. 
[Dr. Beal offered the following resolution at this 
point: Resolved, That a vote of thanks of the Botanical 
Club be extended to E. B. Southwick, Botanist of the 
Central Park, New York, for his very interesting exhibit 
of some sixty or more species of fruits and nuts, including 
their branches and leaves.-The resolution was unani- 
mously accepted.] 
General notes on the Cryptogamic Flora of Liberia, 
by O. F. Cook. 
On the proposed Hand-book of Mosses of Eastern 
America, by Mrs. E. G. Britton, and Claypole. 
Weeds and Weed Roots, by B. D. Halsted. 
The Re discovery of Juncus Cooperi, by F. V. Coville. 
The North American Amelanchiers, by N. L. Britton. 
A New Form of Root Cage, by J. C. Arthur. 
The Botanical Garden Movement in New York, by 
N. L. Britton. 
A few Additions to the Hepatic Flora of the Manual 
Region, by L. M. Underwood. 
On the genus Campylopus in North America, by 
Mrs. E. G. Britton. 
Note on a recent Outbreak of Peach Yellows near 
Ann Arbor, Mich., by A. A. Crozier. The speaker ad- 
duced evidence to prove the communicability of the dis- 
ease. 
Some observations on Epigcea repens, by W. P. Wil- 
son. 
Notes on some species of Crataegus, by N. L. Britton. 
4 5 
Observations on the Ripening of the Seeds o 
Cuphea, by Mrs. H. L. T. Wolcott. 
Notes on the Mountain Flora of Northern Alabama, 
by Chas. Mohr. 
Some general questions in the Classification of 
Myxomycetes, by O. F. Cook. 
North American Cacti, by J. M. Coulter. 
Cultivated Species of Brassica, by L. H. Bailey. 
Notes on the Distribution of Plants in Florida, by 
P. H. Rolfs. 
Notes on some Fungi common during the season of 
1892 at Ames, Iowa, by L. H. Pammel. 
Notes on some Kansas Weeds, by A. S. Hitchcock. 
Notes on the Flora of Block Island, by W. W. 
Bailey. 
Notes on the Distribution of a few Plants, by L. 
H. Pammel. 
Phonological Notes for 1892, by L. H. Pammel. 
Observations on the North American species of 
Orchidaceae, and their Nomenclature, by Thomas 
Morong. 
Some noteworthy Features of the Flora of West 
Virginia, by C. F. Millspaugh. 
On the genus Ditrichum in North America, with one 
new Western species and corrections for two Eastern 
species, by Mrs. E. G. Britton. 
Notes on Terminology, by Theo. Holm. 
Notes upon a Revision of the North American 
Naiadaceae, by Thomas Morong. 
Notes on some Pear and Apple Diseases, by M. B. 
Waite. 
Modifications of the Tomato Plant resulting from 
Seed Selection, by E. S. Goff. 
Some of the rare Mosses of White Top and vicinity, 
recently collected on a trip to Southwestern Virginia, by 
Mrs. E. G. Britton. 
Galvanotropism, by J. C. Arthur. 
A Botanical Terminology, by A. A. Crozier. 6 
A proposed collection of Mosses of New York State 
for the Columbian Exposition, by Mrs. E. G. Britton. 
Climbing Habit of Tillandsia usneoides, by W. P. 
Wilson. 
H. H. Rusby. 
NORTH AMERICAN BOTANISTS AND BOTANICAL 
NOMENCLATURE. 
BY H. H. RUSBY, M. D. 
The past few years, during which the question of 
botanical nomenclature has been strongly agitated and 
earnestly, and I might almost say hotly, discussed, with 
the result of at least a partial agreement upon uniformity 
in certain directions, must be regarded as one of the 
important eras in the history of botany. The part which 
the American botanists have taken in this movement has 
been a prominent one. For the recent revival of interest 
in the subject in this country, and to a considerable ex- 
tent abroad, Prof. Edward Lee Greene of the University 
of California is chiefly responsible. At the time when 
he began his earnest endeavor to induce his associates 
to take up this question, there seemed very little hope 
indeed that any satisfactory result could be reached; but 
his persistence and ability, and the importance of his 
own botanical work, which was carried out upon the 
principles espoused by him, to a certain extent compelled 
attention. Directly opposed as were those principles to 
the position maintained by the Cambridge botanists (to 
say nothing,of some abroad), the immense influence of 
the latter -nreprescn11 very large and almost blind 
and irrational following-was thrown against Prof. 
Greene; and the feeling manifested, and the methods resorted to to suppress him, were such as to form a dis 
agreeable page of our history. A less courageous and 
devoted man would have succumbed to so strong and 
almost violent an opposition. Fortunately, Prof. Greene 
was early joined in his defense of principle and plea for 
system by Prof. N. L. Britton, of Columbia College, and 
several other American botanists. In spite of numerous 
protestations to the effect that the science of botany was 
being neglected for the subject of nomenclature, the 
discussion grew in extent and intensity until all the ac- 
tive botanists in the country, without exception, became 
awakened to the importance of the subject. The re- 
sulting literature forms an important part of the contents 
of the current numbers of Pittonia, the publications of 
the California Academy of Science, the Bulletin of the 
Torrey Botanical Club, and the Botanical Gazette, as well 
as of the Journal of Botany and other foreign publica- 
tions. In a recent paper on the botanical names of 
the U. S. Pharmacopoeia (Bulletin of Pharmacy, July, 
1892) I referred to some of the more important points in 
dispute, touched upon the positions of influential botan- 
ists concerning them, and enunciated the principles 
which at that time were considered to be binding, and 
upon which that revision was founded. Since that time, 
however, most important developments have occurred, 
and the discussion in some particulars has culminated in 
action which must be regarded as official. This is 
especially true as regards American usage. The history 
of these recent developments may be given as follows: 
In 1891 Dr. Otto Kunze published his great Revisio 
Genera Plantarum, in which he reviewed all the generic 
names of Bentham and Hooker's Genera Plantarum, in- 
dicating, besides a great many palpable errors, all those 
7 instances in which such names violated the principles 
of nomenclature which Dr. Kunze defended, and which 
were based upon the rules of the Paris Congress of 1867. 
This work has been most critically reviewed again and 
again in all directions, and it is not my purpose to speak 
of its merits or demerits. Neither can I touch upon the 
principles employed in it, excepting such as have a direct 
relation to subsequent action of an official character. 
The important points were: 
(1) The taking of the first edition of Linn6's Genera, 
of the year 1735, as the starting-point for genera, and 
the first edition of his Species, of the year 1753, as the 
starting-point for species. 
(2) The invariable adherence to these dates; that is, 
the refusal to make exceptions for any cause, except 
such as were rendered necessary by a consideration of 
other portions of the code. 
Although these principles (except 1737 for 1735) 
were the very ones for which the advocates of correct 
systematic nomenclature had been all along contend- 
ing, the publication of Dr. Kunze's book produced 
an almost violent reaction against them. Probably no 
one, not even Dr. Kunze himself, had foreseen the 
vastness of the number of changes which obedience 
to these rules would involve; and which became ap- 
parent upon the publication of the work. Several 
thousand changes in generic, I believe, and innumer- 
able changes in specific, names were found to be in- 
volved. The effect of all this would probably not 
have been so serious but for the peculiar, and from 
my point of view unscrupulous, manner in which Dr. 
Kunze made his name appear as the author of the new 
combinations. The result was that all those who were 
8 not infuriated were appalled, except probably Prof. 
Greene, "whom nothing could appall." The reaction 
against the proceeding took the form of the following 
circular which was distributed to the principal botan- 
ists of the world. 
9 
PROPOSITIONS TO AN AMENDMENT OF THE " LOIS DE 
NOMENCLATURE BOTANIQUE." 
Since the time of Linnaeus, botanists have continu- 
ally endeavored to gain a uniform nomenclature, and 
these endeavors were completely justified on account of 
an easier mutual understanding. We know very well 
that certain differences will always remain, because the 
decision on some questions only depends on the author's 
subjective opinion. But we hope that a gradual and 
continual reformation will bring an essential improve- 
ment. O. Kunze's Reviso Generum has raised an evident 
perturbation, and will cause a complete confusion; there- 
fore we thought it necessary to propose the following 
four resolutions, which refer only to the genera: 
1. The starting-point of the priority of the genera as 
well as the species is the year 1752, resp. 1753. 
2. Nomina nuda and seminuda are to be rejected. 
Pictures alone without diagnoses do not claim any priority 
of a genus. 
3. Similar names are to be conserved, if they differ by 
ever so little in the last syllable; if they only differ in the 
mode of spelling, the newer one must fall. 
4. The names of the following larger or universally 
known genera are to be conserved, though after the strictest 
rules of priority they must be rejected; in many of them the 
change of the names now used is by no means sufficiently 
proved. 
Ad. I. After Alph. de Candolle had proposed to 
take the year 1737 as the starting-point of the priority 
of genera, many botanists had acknowledged it. But we 10 
think that the turning-point from the ancient botany to 
our modern science rests in the introduction of the bi- 
nomial nomenclature. Therefore we propose, after a pre- 
vious communication with Alph. de Candolle, to remove 
the starting-point for both, the species as well as the 
genera, as far as to the year 1753, resp. 1752 -date of the 
Species Plantarum, first edition (1753), with the fourth 
edition of the Genera Plantarum (1752). Before that 
time the scientific position of Linnaeus is not superior to 
Tournefort, Rivinus, and many other botanists, who often 
had described and segregated the genera more exactly 
than he did. 
Ad. II. Many genera have been founded on a pic- 
ture only, without a diagnosis. No doubt, by means of 
it a species sometimes can clearly be made out and 
recognized, and if the picture is a good one all the char- 
acteristics of the plant can be observed. But a picture 
can never show the special characteristics alone which 
raise the genus above the others of its affinity. A genus 
only gains priority by a verbal diagnosis, and nomina 
nuda and seminuda are to be rejected; therefore the 
following works cannot claim a right of priority: Rum- 
phius, Herbarium Amboinense (1741-1755); Burmann, 
Flora Indica (1768); Patr. Browne, History of Jamaica 
([756); Lamarck, Illustration des Genres, pro parte, etc. 
Ad. III. There are to be conserved Adenia as well 
as Adenium, Acnista as well as Acnistus, Alectra as well 
as Alectryon, Apios as well as Apium, Rubia as well as 
Rubus, Bellis as well as Bellium, Chloris as well as 
Chloraea and Chlora, Glyphaea as well as Glyphis and 
Glyphia, Calopogon as well as Calopogonium, Atropa as 
well as Atropis, Galax as well as Galaxia and Galactia, 
Danae as well as Danais, Drimia as well as Drimys, 
Glechoma as well as Glechon, Hydrothrix as well as 
Hydrotriche, Micranthus as well as Micrantheum, Micro- 
tea as well as Microtus, Platystemma as well as Platy- 
stemon, Silvaea as well as Silvia, etc.; we doubt that 
there is any scholar who will confound them. On the contrary, Tetraclis and Tetracleis, Oxythece and Oxy- 
theca, Epidendrum and Epidendron, Oxycoccus and 
Oxycoccos, Asterocarpus and Astrocarpus, Peltostema 
and Peltistema, are only different modes of spelling the 
same word, and the newer one is to be refused if they 
name different genera. 
Ad. IV. The impulse that led to the acknowledg- 
ment of the right of priority was only the vivid desire to 
create a stable nomenclature. If we see that by the 
absolute and unlimited observance of the principle we 
probably gain the contrary of what we intended, we, who 
have ourselves made the rules of priority as a law, have 
the right to amend the latter. Therefore we present a 
list of genera that have more than a merely scientific 
interest or that are very large, and we propose to con- 
serve them in spite of the rules of priority, in order to 
avoid a general confusion by the change of many thou- 
sand names. 
11 
P. Ascherson, 'I 
A. Engler, ! „ 
K. Schumann, \ Commutes 
I. Urban, 
We agree to the four resolutions: 
A. H. Berkhout, R. Beyer, C. Bolle, R. Buttner, U. Dam- 
mer, B. Frank, A. Garcke, E. Gilg, M. Gurke, P. 
Hennings, O. Hoffmann, L. Kny, E. Koehne, G. 
Krabbe, F. Kranzlin, L Krug, M. Kuhn, G. Lindau, 
E. Loew, P. Magnus, F. Niedenzu, F. Pax, H. 
Potonie, O. Reinhardt, R. Ruthe, S. Schwendener, 
P. Taubert, G. Volkens, O. Warburg, A. Winkler, L. 
Wittmack, E. Wunschmann. 
NUMERUS 
SPECIERUM. NOMINA CONSERVANDA. 
NOMINA REJICIENDA. 
5 
Erophila, DC. (1821). 
Gansbium, Ad. (1763). 
50 
Jonidium, Vent. (1803). 
Calceolaria, Lofl. (1758). 
4 
Spergularia, Pers. (1805). 
Tissa. v. Buda, Ad. (1763). NUMERUS 
SPECIERUM. NOMINA CONSERVANDA. 
NOMINA REJICIENDA. 
40 
Ternstroemia, Thbg. (1794). 
Mokofua, Ad. (1763). 
80 
Malvastrum, A. Gr. (1849). 
Malveopsis, Prsl. (1844). 
II 
Cola, Schott et Endl. (1832). 
Edwardia, Raf. (1812). 
17 
Podalyria, Lam. (1795). 
Aphora, Neck. (1790). 
200 
Oxytropis, DC. (1802). 
Spiesia, Neck. (1790). 
155 
Desmodium, Desv. (1813). 
Meibomia, Heist, ex Fabr. 
(1763)- 
80 
Adesmia, DC (1825). 
Patagonium, Schrk. (1808). 
55 
Barringtonia, Forst. (1775). 
Huttum, -Ad. (1763). 
70 
Sonerila, Roxb. (1820). 
Cassebeeria, Dennst. (1818). 
30 
Rhipsalia, Pers. (1805). 
Hariota, Ad. (1763). 
10 
Psederia, Linn. (1767). 
Hondbesseion, Ad. (1763). 
16 
Liatris, Schreb. (1791). 
Laciniaria, Hill (1762). 
140 
Mikania, W. (1803). 
Blumea, DC. (1833). 
Willoughbya, Neck. (1790). 
115 
Placus, Lour. (1790). 
28 
Euryops, Cass. (1818). 
Jacobaeastrum, Man. (1751). 
24 
Gazania, Gartm. (1791). 
Meridiana, Hill (1761). 
160 
Cirsium, Scop. (1761). 
Cnicus et Carduus, L. (1753 
ex p.) 
80 
Scaevola, Linn. (1772). 
Lobelia, Ad. (1763). 
50 
Aremia, Willd. (1807). 
Statice, Fabr., etc. (1759). 
120 
Statice, Willd. (1807). 
Limonium, Fabr. etc. (1759). 
3> 
Chonemorpha, Don. (1837). 
Oxypetalum, R. Br. (1809). 
Bellutakaka, Ad. (1763). 
50 
Gothofreda, Vent. (1803). 
50 
Herpestis, Gartn. (1805). 
Brami, Ad. (1763). 
Theka, Ad. (1763). 
3 
Tectona, L. fil. (1781). 
10 
Aerva, Forsk. (1775). 
Uretia, Ad. (1763). 
45 
Suaeda, Forsk. (1775). 
Dondia, Ad. (1763). 
9° 
Myristica, L. f. (1781). 
Comacum, Ad. (1763). 
30 
Isopogon, R. Br. (1810). 
Atylus, Sal. (1807). 
U 
Stenocarpus, R. Br. (1810). 
Cybele, Sal. et Kn. 11809). 
Hylogyne, Sal. et Kn. (1809). 
Josepbia, Sal. et Kn. (1809). 
Leucadendron, Sal. et Kn. 
(1809). 
3 
Telotea, R. Br. (1810). 
47 
Dryandra, R. Br. (1810). 
24 
Leucospermum, R. Br. (1810). 
60 
Persoonia, Sm. (1798). 
Linkia, Cav. (1797). 
12 
Nivenia, R. Br. (1810). 
Paranomus, Sal. et Kn.(i8o9). 
70 
Leucadendron, R. Br. (1840). 
Protea, Sal. et Kn. (1809). 
3 
Knightia, R. Br. (1810). 
Rymandra, Sal. et Kn. (1809). 
60 
Protea, R. Br. (1810). 
Gagnedi, Bruce. (1790). 
46 
Banksia, L. f. (1781). 
Sirmullera, O. Ktze. (cf. ap. 
Pineleam). 
10 
Sorocephalus, R. Br. (1810). 
Soranthe, Sal. et Kn. (1809). 
9 
Lomatia, R. Br. (1810). 
Tricondylus.Sal. et Kn.(i8o9). 
76 
Pimelea, Gartn. (1788). 
Banksia, Forst. (1776). 
12 13 
NUMERUS 
SPECIERUM. NOMINA CONSERVANDA. 
NOMINA REJICIENDA. 
20 
Strutbiola, L. f. (1767). 
Belvala, Ad. (1763). 
12 
Exocarpus, Lab. (1798). 
. Xylophyllos, L. (1771). 
20 
Julocroton, Mart. (1837). 
Cicca, Ad. (1763). 
175 
Pilea, Lindl. (1821). 
Adicea, Raf. (1815). 
330 
Dendrobium. Sw. (1799). 
Callista, Lour. (1790). 
30 
Angraecum, Lindl. (1826). 
Angorchis, Thou. (1809). 
40 
Polystachya, Hook. (1824-25). 
Dendrorchis, Thou. (1809). 
Graphorchis, Thou. (1809). 
6o 
Eulophia, R. Br. (1823). 
8o 
Spiranthes, Rich. (1818). 
Gyrostachys, Pers (1807). 
Humboldtia, R. et P. (1794). 
400 
Pleurothallis, R. Br. (1813;. 
120 
Liparis, Rich. (1818). 
Leptorchis, Thou. (1809). 
100 
Bolbophyllum, Spr. (1826). 
Eria, Lindl. (1825). 
Phyllorchis, Thou. (1809). 
85 
Pinalia, Ham. (Febr. 1825). 
60 
Coelogyne, Lindl. (1825). 
Libertia, Spr. (1825). 
Pleione, Don. (Febr. 1825). 
8 
Tekel, Ad. (1753). 
r9 
Patersonia, R. B. (1807). 
Genosiris, Lab. (1804). 
5 
Hosta, Tratt. (1812). 
Saussurea, Salisb (1807). 
59 
Haworthia, Duv. (1824). 
Catevala, Ad. (1763). 
9 
Astelia, R. Br. (1810). 
Funckia, W. (1808). 
36 
Dracaena, Jurs. (1767). 
Draco, Ad. (1763). 
22 
Thysanotus, R. Br. (1810). 
Chlamysporum, Salisb. (1809). 
3 
Agapanthus, 1'Herit. (1788). 
Tulbaghia, Heist. (1753). 
30 
Cyanotis, Don. (1825). 
Tonningia, Neck. (1790). 
28 
Dichorisandria, Mik. (1820). 
Stickmannia, Neck. (1790). 
40 
Luzula, DC. (1805). 
Juncodes, Ad. (1763). 
60 
Chamaedorea, W. (1804). 
Nunnezharia, R. et P. (1794). 
50 
Pandanus, L. f. (1781). 
Keura, Forsk. (1775). 
20 
Hydrosme, Schott (1858). 
Paepalanthus, Mart. (1833-35). 
Corynophallus, Schott (1857). 
Dupatya, Veil. (1825). 
Iria, Rich. (1805). 
215 
200 
Fimbristylis, Vahl. (1806). 
33 
Rottboellia, L. f. (1781). 
Manisuris, L. (1771). 
20 
Setaria, Beauv. (1812). 
Chamaerhaphis, R. Br. (1810). 
3 
Phyllocladus, Rich. (1826). 
Podocarpus, Lab. (1806). 
40 
Podocarpus, 1'Herit. (1810). 
Nageia, Gartn. (1788). 
At the same time that all this was occurring abroad, 
the following circular was distributed for signatures in 
this country: 
In view of the International Botanical Congress to 
be held at Genoa, Italy, Sept. 4 to 11, 1892, we, the un- 
dersigned American botanists, favor the adoption of the 
following general principles of nomenclature: 14 
I. The adoption of initial dates for generic and 
specific names. 
II. That the publication of a generic name or a 
binomial specific name invalidates the use of the same 
name for any subsequently published genus or species. 
III. That in the transfer of a species to a genus 
other than the one under which it was first published, 
the original specific name is to be preserved, unless such 
name has previously been employed in the genus to 
which the species is transferred; and if the author who 
transfers such species alters the name, it may be restored 
by any subsequent author. 
IV. That a varietal name be treated as equal in 
rank to a specific name, in its relations as a homonym 
and in the transfer of species and varieties from one 
genus to another. 
At the meeting of the Botanical Club of the 
A. A. A. S., referred to in our preceding paper, the sub- 
ject, by a previous general understanding, was taken up 
for official action by that body. The first step was a 
non-official conference in the parlors of the Powers 
Hotel, to which all the botanists known to be present at 
the meeting were invited. The meeting was largely 
attended, and the subject very freely discussed. As all 
present had been for a long time studying the questions 
involved, the meeting was enabled to result in impor- 
tant conclusions and agreements. Probably the most 
important conclusion reached was one which had up to 
that time been found impossible, viz., that no one party 
must hope that all of its ideas would be adopted by all 
the others. This fact once fully appreciated, all parties 
became ready to make reasonable concessions, and for 
the first time in America the way was made ready for a 
practical uniformity in botanical nomenclature. A com- 
mittee was appointed to prepare and print the resolutions which had been adopted at this informal meeting, and to 
present the same to the Botanical Club. Upon the 
following day the Club passed this resolution. 
In view of the great desirability of establishing a 
stable system of botanical nomenclature in North Amer- 
ica, I move the appointment of a committee of seven 
members of the Club, of which the President shall be 
one, to consider the questions involved, and to submit a 
set of recommendations to the Club before the close of 
the present session. 
The President appointed the following members to 
serve on this committee: H. H. Rusby, N. L. Britton, 
J. M. Coulter, F. V. Coville, L. M. Underwood, L. F. 
Ward, and W. A. Kellerman. 
The report was presented upon the afternoon of 
Friday, August 19th, and provoked a very long and ani- 
mated discussion, with the result that the following reso- 
lutions were adopted: 
Resolved, That the Paris code of 1867 be adopted 
except where it conflicts with the following: 
I. The Law of Priority.-Priority of publication 
is to be regarded as the fundamental principle of botan- 
ical nomenclature. 
II. Beginning of Botanical Nomenclature.- 
The botanical nomenclature of both genera and species 
is to begin with the publication of the first edition of 
Linnaeus' Species Plantarum, in 1753. 
III. Stability of Specific Names.-In the trans- 
fer ol a species to a genus other than the one under 
which it was first published, the original specific name is 
to be retained, unless it is identical with the generic 
name or with a specific name previously used in that 
genus. 
IV. Homonyms.-The publication of a generic 
name or a binomial invalidates the use of the same 
15 16 
name for any subsequently published genus or species 
respectively. 
V. Publication of Genera-Publication of a 
genus consists only (i) in the distribution of a printed 
description of the genus named; (2) in the publication of 
the name of the genus and the citation of one or more 
previously published species as examples or types of the 
genus, with or without a diagnosis. 
VI. Publication of Species.-Publication of a 
species consists only (1) in the distribution of a printed 
description of the species named; (2) in the publishing 
of a binomial, with reference to a previously published 
species as a type. 
VII. Similar Generic Names.-Similar generic 
names are not to be rejected on account of slight differ- 
ences, except in spelling of the same word; for example, 
Apios and Apium are to be retained, but of Epidendrum 
and Epidendron, Asterocarpus and Astrocarpus, the latter 
is to be rejected. 
VIII. Citation of Authorities.-In the case of 
a species which has been transferred from one genus to 
another, the original author must always be cited in 
parentheses, followed by the author of the new binomial. 
Resolved, That the Committee on Nomenclature be 
continued as a permanent committee of the Club or 
Botanical Section of the A. A. A. S., to prepare and print 
a list of flowering plants within the area of the sixth 
edition of Gray's Manual, in accordance with these 
recommendations. 
(Amended Aug. 22d, increasing the area by in- 
cluding the States of Kansas and Nebraska, and the 
Canadian Provinces from Manitoba to Newfoundland.) 
Resolved, That this Committee be empowered to 
receive all suggestions and criticisms of this list, and to 
report upon the matter at the next meeting of the Club 
or Botanical Section. 
Resolved, That Dr. Lucien M. Underwood be dele- 
gated to represent this Association of American Botan- ists at the International Botanical Congress to be held 
at Genoa, Italy, Sept. 4 to n, 1892. 
That a committee of three be appointed to obtain 
funds by subscription to defray the expenses of the dele- 
gate. [The Chairman appointed Dr. J. M. Coulter, Dr. 
W. P. Wilson, and Dr. E. F. Smith.] 
17 
The action which has been reported above may be 
considered as having established a custom in America 
which will become well-nigh uniform, and the influence 
of which extends even beyond the circle of those (nearly 
all our American botanists) who definitely subscribed to 
the rules. That is, it has made apparent the earnestness 
and the sincerity of those taking part in the movement, 
and their readiness to make all reasonable concessions 
for the sake of the important object of securing uniform- 
ity. Necessarily, therefore, it enlists the sympathies 
even of those few who did not see their way clear to 
consistently become parties to the contract, and makes 
them ready to at least enter into the spirit of the move- 
ment, and to do as little as possible toward interfering 
with harmonious action. Indeed, it is the general pro- 
motion of this spirit which may be considered as the 
most important outcome of the Rochester meeting. 
It will be observed that Prof. Underwood was ap- 
pointed a committee to report the Club and its views at 
the subsequent meeting to be held at Genoa. This 
meeting Prof. Underwood attended, and his report was 
printed in full in the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 
for November, p. 325. Ina few words the result of Prof. 
Underwood's mission may be stated as follows: The 
first three propositions of the Berlin circular above 
printed were adopted, with the important amendment 
that the congress adopt the resolution of the Rochester convention, that the starting-point for both genera and 
species should be the first edition of Linne's Species 
Plantarum, or the year 1753. An agreement could not 
be reached upon the fourth proposition of the Berlin 
circular; and to consider this as well as other important 
points covered in the Rochester resolutions, and to report 
upon the same at a future date, the following Interna- 
tional standing Committee was appointed: 
18 
Prof. P. Ascherson, Berlin. 
Prof. H. Bailien, Paris. 
J. G. Baker. Kew. 
Prof. A. Batalin, St. Petersburg. 
Prof. N. L. Britton, New York. 
Ed. Bereau, Paris. 
A. de Candolle, Geneva. 
Prof. T. Caruel, Florence. 
Prof. L. Celakovsky, Prague. 
Baron C. B. Clarke, Kew. 
F. Crepin, Brussels. 
Prof. J. M. Coulter, Blooming- 
ton, Indiana. 
Th. Durand, Brussels. 
A. Engler, Berlin. 
Th. Fries, Stockholm. 
Prof. E. L. Greene, Berkeley, 
California. 
J. A. Henriques, Coimbra. 
Sir J. D. Hooker, Kew. 
Prof. A. Kerner von Marilann. 
Prof. F. Krasan, Graz. 
Joh. Lange, Copenhagen. 
- Malinvand, Paris. 
Dr. Fr. Muller, Varel. 
- Perez-Lara. 
Prof. L. Radlkofer, Munich. 
Prof. P. A. Saccardo, Padua. 
Prof. J. Schmalhausen, Kew. 
- Suringar. 
Prof. M. Willkomm, Prague. 
Prof. V. B. Wittrock, Stockholm. 
An important portion of Prof. Underwood's report 
was the following: " Later conversation at Kew con- 
vinced me that the English botanists will accede to any 
reasonable standard that promises uniformity and fixity." 
It will thus be clear to all readers of the Bulletin of 
Pharmacy that there is every reasonable prospect that 
in the near future the botanists of the world will be 
united upon a system of nomenclature which will be con- 
sidered as to a certain extent binding, at least for a 
generation. At the present time we may consider the 
year of starting as definitely fixed. Undoubtedly there 
will be some botanists who, unwilling to concede any- 19 
thing, will still adhere to a prior date. As to whether or not 
this is a misfortune, we do not express an opinion; but its 
effect in demoralizing custom and promoting inconveni- 
ence will not, it is believed, be very great. Under any 
circumstances, American botanists have something upon 
which they can rely in the writing of botanical names, 
with at least a showing of authority. 
A SUPPLEMENT TO THE REVISION OF THE BOTANICAL 
NAMES OF THE U. S. PHARMACOPCEIA PRINTED IN 
THE BULLETIN OF PHARMACY FOR JULY, 1892 
BY H. H. RUSBY, M.D. 
The two reports which have just preceded make 
sufficiently plain the necessity for a substitution of 
names in those cases where the names adopted in my 
last paper were not the ones first printed subsequent to 
the beginning of the year 1753, which has now been 
adopted as the initial date for both genera and species. 
At the same time occasion is taken to add a few deci- 
sions which I was not prepared to make at the time of 
writing that paper, as well as to correct a few errors 
which have since been noted. For information and sug- 
gestions given me, I am indebted to Prof. J. M. Maisch, 
Prof. E. M. Holmes, Prof. W. G. Farlow, and Prof. B. 
Daydon Jackson. 
Asafcetida.-Mr. E. M. Holmes informs me that Mr. Aitchison 
proposes immediately to travel over the region where 
Kaempfer collected the specimens referred to in my last, 
and that he will then endeavor to re-collect the species so as 
to determine positively whether the plant upon which Linne 
founded his name Ferula Asafcetida is really the one which 
yields our commercial gum resin of that name. I agree with 
Mr. Holmes that until this has been done it will be best for 20 
us to retain the name adopted in my last. It appears, how- 
ever, that Messrs. Bentham and Hooker were not the first to 
use the binomial, it having been employed by Regel. The 
name will therefore stand Ferula foetida (Bunge), Regel. 
Aspidium.-From Dryopteiis Jilix mas, Schott, Gen. Fil. (1834); 
and from Dryopteris marginale, Asa Gray, Manual, ed. I. 
Synonym: Polypodium Felix-foemina, L., Sp. Pl., ed. I, 
P- i55i ('753) + 
Although the genus Dryopteris dates from Amman (1739', 
long before the earliest date that we are permitted to recog- 
nize, yet within our limit it was also the first name used for 
the genus which we have been calling Aspidium, being cited 
by Adamson in 1763. 
Getraria.-The history of this name I am now able to give as 
follows: From Cetraria Islandica (L.), Acharius, Lich. Univ., 
512 (1810). 
Synonym: Lichen Islandica, L., Sp. Pl., p. 1145 (1753) + 
Chondrus.-From Chondrus crispus, Stackhouse, Ner. Brit., ed. 
1, p. 24 (1801), fide W. G. Farlow, in Utt. The Fucus crispus 
of Linn6, Mant., p. 134 (1767), is not now regarded as being 
identical with our plant. 
Also from Gigartina mamillosa, Agardh., Phyc. Brit. Pl., 
199. 
Chrysarobinum.-From Andira ararobe, Aguiar, Mem. sob. a 
Araroba (1879). 
Cimicifuga.-From Cimicifuga racemosa (L ), Nutt., Gen., ii, p. 
15 (1818). 
The use of Thalictrodes (1739) *s no longer admissible 
under our rules. 
Cinchona.-Our new date kills Condamine's name Quinquina 
and permits us to retain the name Cinchona. 
Colocynthis -The same change in date throws out the generic 
name Colocynthis (1745) and installs Forskal's Citrullus, and 
the name Citrullus colocynthis, Schrad., becomes the correct 
botanical name. 
Copaiba.-Through a mere oversight in my last, I failed to say, 
" and from other species of Copaiba." The change of date 
does not affect the correctness of the generic name Copaiba, 
which was the first one used within our limit, viz., by Jaquin 
in 1760. (Enum., pp. 4 and 21.) Ergota.-From Claviceps purpurea (Fr.), Tul., Ann. Sci. Nat.,, 
xx, t. 3 (1853). 
Synonym: Spharia purpurea, Fr., Syst. Myc., ii, p. 325 
(1823). 
Erythroxylon.-A number of distinct names have been recently 
proposed in pharmaceutical literature for the supposed species 
or varieties yielding the various commercial varieties of this 
drug. It does not, however, seem to me wise to adopt any of 
these names at the present time. The most careful investiga- 
tions which I have been able to make concerning the Coca 
plant leave me entirely in doubt as to the botanical relations 
of the several known forms. In addition to this, the pro- 
posed names seem to have been selected without regard to 
any rules of nomenclature. I cannot, therefore, at the present 
time, do otherwise than to refer all forms to the one species, 
E. ceca, Lam. 
Fceniculum.-Duplicate names having now happily been ex- 
cluded, we are able to adopt for this plant the name Fcenicu- 
lum capillaceum, Gilib. 
Gaultheria.-Our changed date does away with the name Bros- 
ssea, restoring the name as it appears in the present edition 
of the U. S. Pharmacopoeia. 
Hamamelis.-A wrong citation was given in my last. -jTlje name , 
first appeared in Sp. Pl., ed. 1, p. 124 (1753) - <- 
Hedeoma.-The date of this name should have been given as 
1805 instead of 1867. 
ILLICIUM.-From Illicium verum, Hook. f., Bot. Mag., t. 7008 
(July, 1888). It now seems pretty clearly established that the 
specimens from which Linre described his I. anisatum did 
not represent the plant which yields the officinal Star-anise, but 
the poisonous variety of Japan, so that the name I. religiosum, 
Sieb and Zucc., is really a mere synonym of I anisatum. The 
genuine Star-anise tree, therefore, actually never possessed a 
name until that given it by Hooker as above cited. 
Ipecacuanha-The adoption in my last of the specific name 
"emetica" was an error, for " Ipecacuanha" had been used 
in 1802, three years earlier. The correct name is therefore 
Cephcelis Ipecacuanha, (Brot.), A. Rich., etc. -f- 
Synonym: Callicocca Ipecacuanha, Brotero,Trans. Lin. Soc., 
vi, p. 137 (1802) 4- 
21 Jalapa.-From I. Jalapa, Ccmr Journ. Amer. Med. Sci. for 
1829, v., p. 300 (published Feb., 1830)-}- This reference 
was kindly furnished me by Prof. Maisch. It is therefore 
clear that I. jalapa, Don., was some years later. Mr. B. 
Daydon Jackson has very kindly looked up for me the pub- 
lication of I.purga, Hayne, and finds it to have been in the 
year 1833. It is therefore entirely clear that Coxe's name is 
the oldest by three years. 
Kino.-The name Lingoum is thrown out by our change of rule, 
and the name remains as before; Pterocarpus Marsupium, 
Roxb. 
Lappa.-To the name as published add, "and other species of 
Arctium." It now appears pretty clear that the European 
Burdock represents three distinct species, and it seems ex- 
tremely probable that all of them yield the commercial root. 
Lobelia.-In my last the place of publication was wrongly given. 
It should have been Sp. Pl., ed. 1, p. 931 (1753) -j- 
Macis (and Myristica).-The generic name Palaia must now be 
rejected so that the name is correct in the present edition of 
the U. S. P. 
Oleum Cajuputi.-Likewise must we reject the name Myrtoleu- 
codendron, leaving the name correct as it now appears in the 
U. S. P. 
Pilocarpus. - From Pilocarpus Selloanus, Engler, Fl. Bras., xii, 
part 2, p. 136 -f- (Rio Janeiro Jaborandi), and from P. Jabor- 
andi, Holmes Ms. (Pernambuco Jaborandi). It appears that 
the genuine P. pennatifolius, Lem., is from Paraguay only, 
whence we do not receive any commercial leaves. That 
species therefore must be excluded as a source of Jaborandi. 
Specimens of the Pernambuco Jaborandi received by Mr. 
Holmes confirm his previous opinion that they come from an 
undescribed species, which therefore he proposes to publish 
under the above name. 
Pix Burgundica.-We shall now be able to write Abies excelsa, 
Poir, in Lam. Diet., vi, p. 316 (1804) 4- 
Santalum Rubrum.-The name as printed in the present edition 
of the U. S. P. will now be correct. 
Sassafras.-The exclusion of the double name will now require 
us to write Sassafras variifolium (Salisb.), O. Kunze, Rev. 
22 23 
Gen. Pl., p. 574 (1891) + The specific name " officinalis" was 
first used by Nees in 1836, while Salisbury's variifolium dates 
from 1796. 
Serpentaria.-It seems worth while to note that the rhizome of 
A. Serpentaria, L., is now scarcely known in commerce, 
practically the whole of our drug coming from A. reticulata, 
Nutt. 
Ustilago.-From Ustilago Maidis (DC.), Corda, Ic. Fung., v, 
p. 3 (1842). 
Synonym: Uredo maidis, DC., Fl. Franc., vi, p. 77 
(1815) + 
Xanthoxylum.-A question has been raised by Prof. Maisch 
concerning the identity of the West Indian and the United 
States plants which have gone by the name Xanthoxylon Clava- 
Herculis. Prof. Maisch is undoubtedly correct in declaring 
that the two species are not identical. It is, moreover, a nice 
question as to which of the two species is correctly entitled to 
bear the above name. A most careful consideration of all 
the facts compels us to the view that the name properly be- 
longs to the plant of the United States, as printed in my pre- 
ceding paper.