433 
Thus all the original species of Physarum have at one time or 
another been removed from the genus, and we are brought to the 
alternative of dropping the old name or of preserving it by slip- 
ping it around over the different generic groups, representatives 
of several of which were included under most of the old names. 
If we adopt Lister’s characterization of Fuligo we must abandon 
the genus Physarum in the sense in which recent authorities have 
used the name, for, as Lister himself states, the generic character 
of Fuligo depends on the presence or absence of a bell-jar over 
the ripening plasmodium. Physarum would then either be 
dropped or passed back to what is now called Lamproderma, a 
genus of a distinct family. What would then be the confusion if 
the next writer should find characters on which Fuligo, Tilma- 
doche and Angioridium might be held distinct ? 
That there will be immediate uniformity of view on the classi- 
fication of the Myxomycetes is not to be expected, and if we are 
to have an arbitrary system of rules by which the law of priority 
is to be applied in nomenclature it seems that one might be made 
which would at least fix a generic name to a certain natural group 
which varying views of classification could change only in size or 
Supposed importance. To follow a principle which may necessi- 
tate that a name be passed back and forth between different fami- 
lies or natural orders is to create confusion by law. To drop 
names based on species which represented new generic types in- 
volves a principle so manifestly unjust that continued acceptance 
of it is not to be expected. 
One method by which both these difficulties could be forever 
avoided is to agree that unless the author of a genus designates a 
Specific type in connection with his original description, the first 
Species referred to the genus may be looked upon as the genéric 
type, the genus to stand only if its type is found distinct from pre- 
Viously named genera. In the Myxomycetes this principle would 
Probably necessitate fewer changes than either of the others. 
Such a simple method of settling nomenclatorial problems may be 
thought to smack of empiricism. Its utility and practicality can- 
Not, however, be doubted, and it seems to be in general and grow- 
ing favor among zodlogists. The only serious objection to its 
8eneral application seems to be that a large number of names 
