68 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



in such cases. In this connection we might mention one of our own 

 species. There is a Puccinia which grows on Claytonla, whiih was 

 described by Peck and Clinton in 1873. It is now well known that this 

 Puccinia is often accompanied by what was described by Schweinitz 

 in 1831 as Cceoma (^cidium) Claytoniatum. It is inferred that one 

 form is a stage of the otlier, and, supposing that this inference is cor- 

 rect, shall we say, instead of Puccinia Marice-Wilsoni Clinton, Puc- 

 cinia Claytoniata (Schw.) Fallow ? I am distinctly of the opinion 

 that such a change should not be allowed. The case mentioned is one 

 of the strongest, and other instances are less favorable still. 



One more point needs to be considered. If one is not justified in 

 going back to aecidial specific names, is he justified in going back to 

 old Uredo names? It seems to me that one is justified in this, and 

 that the objections urged in the case previously mentioned do not 

 apply to any great extent here. As a matter of fact, the types of the 

 earlier described Uredo forms are much better preserved than ^cidia^ 

 and examinations of older herbaria frequently enable one to determine 

 with accuracy what form was meant by an older author. Further- 

 more, the Uredo and teleutosporic forms frequently are found together 

 in the same soriis, or in close proximity, and examinations of authentic 

 specimens often show the relation of an old described Uredo to a more 

 recently described teleutosporic form. The most important considera- 

 tion, however, is the following. Many of the forms now recognized 

 as teleutosporic have one-celled spores, and were originally described 

 as forms of Uredo, and in such cases one must go back to the original 

 specific names. We may mention several of our species of Uromyces 

 originally described by Schweinitz as species of Uredo. Whenever 

 an examination of Schweinitz's specimens of Uredo enables us to 

 recognize a species of Uromyces or Puccinia, we are warranted, I 

 think, in substituting a Schweinitzian specific name for a more recent 

 one, and placing his name as authority in a parenthesis. A number 

 of Schweinitz's species of Uredo are so generally known to belong to 

 Uromyces, Coleosporitim, and other genera, that the use of the paren- 

 thesis is often omitted, until some m3^cologist desirous of adding his 

 name to as many new species as possible gains a cheap reputation by 

 appearing suddenly in print with his name attached as authority to an 

 old and well-known Schweinitzian species. 



If I have advocated retaining the older Uredo name in cases where 

 we know with certainty what was meant by the earlier mycologists, I 

 have by no means intended encouraging the use of names about which 

 there is doubt, either from the absence of typical specimens, or confu- 



