INTRODUCTION. 1 7 



And to destroy that science would be an insult to such men 

 as Tuckerman, Nylander, and other great lichenologists. 



As there were many ways that lead to Rome, so there are 

 many systems to get the particular species. Each author has 

 his own peculiar fancy to get there. 



The necessity of some kind of system is so apparent, that 

 many attempts for the methodical arrangement of fungi were 

 made even before Elias Fries ; but his system was so superior 

 to former ones, that no sooner had he published his Systema 

 Mycologium, than all other arrangements became obsolete. 

 Not man}- years elapsed before Lindly, of England, made 

 improvements on his S3'stem, followed by Berkley and DeBary. 



The classification of fungi is still an unsettled matter, yet 

 the different systems have the same object in view, that is, of 

 getting the name of each individual species. 



The classification of Underwood and Cook in their ' ' Cen- 

 tury of Illustrative Fungi," is convenient and includes 

 myxomycetes, which truly belong to fungi. They arranged 

 them under six groups, viz : 



1. Basidiomycetks. — Spores free on pedicels, includes nearly 



all the sporifera of the old classification. 



2. AcoMYCKTES. — Spores enclosed in sacs or asci, includes 



the sporidifera of the older classification. Morels, 

 pezizae, sphaeriacei, powdery mildew, etc. 



3. Phycomycetes. — Spores are similar to some of the algce 



tribes. Zoospores and conidia, and sexually as zygo- 

 spores or oospores. The potato rot and downy mildew 

 on grape vines belong to this family. 



4. Myxomycetes. — Slime moulds. 



5. Saccharomycetes. — Yeast fungi. 



6. Schizomycetes. — Including unicellular bateria. 



