66 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



In the case of Peronosporece^ the nomenclature presents no excep- 

 tional difficulty; but the case is very different with the Uredinece, 

 which present, perhaps, greater complications than any other group of 

 plants. Among mycologists the almost universal custom is, in case a 

 change is made in the genus, to retain the original specific name, put 

 the original authority in a parenthesis, and add the name of the person 

 who first gave the correct generic name. In any work which is at all 

 elaborate, the parenthetical name is given as well as the generic 

 authority, and in such cases no difficulty usually arises. But in 

 published lists or specimens distributed as exchanges, the parenthetical 

 name is often omitted, and difficulties of interpretation arise. By 

 retaining the parenthetical name difficulty may be avoided ; but it is 

 too much to expect that mycologists will closely adhere to the plan in 

 practice, because it involves a good deal of trouble. In the case of 

 Phaenogams the parenthesis is not generally used, and it might be 

 asked whether cryptogamic botanists had not also better abandon it. 

 The usage, however, is so nearly general, that one can see very little 

 hope of its discontinuance, at least for a good many years to come. 

 But it must be admitted that in the case of the Thallophytes the use of 

 the parenthesis has a value which it would not have in Phajnogams. 

 The genera of Fungi, for instance, are not so definitely fixed as in 

 Phaenogams, and the tendency seems to be to increase the number 

 with greater and greater rapidity. A species of Fries, for instance, 

 may during five years be dragged through no one knows how many 

 new genera, and it is with a mildly malicious satisfaction that one sees 

 those modern writers who adopt minute generic subdivision forced by 

 the prevailing custom to add the {Fr.) as a slight tribute to the 

 past. 



If mycologists are at times too much inclined to multiply genera, 

 they sometimes err in another direction, and in search of an old spe- 

 cific name pass beyond the limits of the certain, or even the probable, 

 to what is merely vague conjecture. It is this latter tendency which 

 has served to make the nomenclature of the Uredinece at times 

 obscure. The connection between the a^cidial states and the teleuto- 

 sporic states of the different species brings up the question of how this 

 connection can be represented in the nomenclature. Shall we, in case 

 we believe that a certain ^cidium is connected with a certain Uredo 

 and Puccinio, take the oldest specific name, whether it belongs to the 

 u^ridinm, Uredo, or Pucclnia'} This is in the main the plan adopted 

 by Winter in what I would gladly acknowledge to be the most com- 

 plete systematic account which has yet appeared of the Uredinece of any 



