2 GENERA OF FUNGI 



of the Pyrenomycetcs, their true significance has not been placed in the 

 proper Hght by either Hoehnel or Theissen. We really have here a family 

 (Pseudosphacriaccae) the members of which are much more closely related 

 to the genera of another family (Sphacriaccac) than they are to each 

 other" (Ann. Myc. 21:1 1923). 



A similar though less tragic fate has overtaken the Englcrulaccac as a 

 result of the recension by Petrak (Ann. Myc. 26:386 1928). This family 

 was established by Theissen and Sydow in 1917 and to it were referred 

 some sixteen genera characterized by the slimy histolysis of the perithecium 

 (Ann. Myc. 15:468). Petrak emphasizes the fact that this criterion occurs 

 in different orders and thus is led to reduce the number of genera to six, 

 five of the original family becoming synonyms and five of doubtful 

 character. 



Equally significant is the detailed critique by Petrak of the new system 

 of Fungi Imperfecti proposed by Hoehnel (Falck Myk. Unters. Ber. 1 :301- 

 369 1923). 'T shall here endeavor to answer the question whether the new 

 system is a natural one, whether it does justice to the mutual relationships 

 of the genera in so far as possible, and whether, as Hoehnel assumes, 'it 

 actually provides a firm basis for further elaboration, and by others like- 

 wise.' Whoever judges Saccardo's system of the fungi without prejudice 

 and with complete objectivity must admit that, however unnatural it may 

 seem otherwise, it would serve very well for practical purposes and for the 

 provisional disposition of the immense host of fungi were its usefulness not 

 greatly reduced by the large number of genera known to him only by the 

 original descriptions. To me it is an established fact that Hoehnel's system 

 exhibits the natural relationships of the genera no better, and in part less 

 well than the old system of Saccardo. Compared with the latter, it has the 

 further great disadvantage of being for practical purposes as good as worth- 

 less. For while the beginner can always find his way with a certain security 

 in Saccardo's system, with Hoehnel's he must go astray in the great majority 

 of cases and fall into one error after another" (Ann. Myc. 23 :1 1925). 



It is superfluous to refer to the many other instances of disagreement or 

 discrepancy in the work of the revisionists. Regardless of the credit due 

 them for devotion to a difficult task, it is obvious that the individual method 

 rarely yields comprehensive and objective results. Still more unfortunate is 

 its lack of permanence, it being a truism that the work of one monographer 

 is usually upset by the next, rendering it all but impossible to build the 

 foundations of mycology broadly, deeply and securely. It has become a mat- 

 ter of critical importance to substitute for the personal equation of the 

 individual worker the cumulative confirmation made possible by cooperation, 

 as well as to suggest a method by which this may be brought about. In 

 science, as in society, it is desirable to limit the independence of the indi- 

 vidual only to the extent that the best interests of the group demand, but 

 no mycologist with a broad view of the field can doubt that this point has 

 for some time been passed. 



