34 The North American Cup-Fungi 



omy of this group of fungi, in the light of our present knowl- 

 edge, none of them can be accepted as an infallible guide. 



Although Boudier suggested in 1879 the presence or absence 

 of the operculum in the ascus as a fundamental basis on which 

 to separate the Discomycetes into two large sections, his con- 

 temporaries in other European countries seem to have over- 

 looked or disregarded the suggestion. Both Lindau of Germany 

 and Saccardo of Italy adopted classifications of their own, each 

 different, and each grouping operculate and inoperculate species 

 promiscuously in the same family and often in the same genus, 

 entirely disregarding this most fundamental of morphological 

 characters. 



The effect of this diversity of treatment on nomenclature 

 might best be illustrated by taking as an example the genus 

 Lamprospora, as treated in this work. The name Lamprospora 

 was proposed for this genus by De-Notaris in 1864. In 1869, 

 Fuckel introduced the name Crouania, which, however, was 

 untenable, since it had previously been used for another plant 

 genus. In 1889, Saccardo suggested the name Barlaea, but later 

 finding that it was untenable changed it to Barlaeina. Rehm 

 followed Saccardo's suggestion in the use of Barlaea but he, 

 also, later found that it was untenable and proposed the use of 

 the generic name Detonia. Lindau, recognizing the untenability 

 of the name Barlaea, proposed the substitution of Plicariella. 

 Boudier continued to use the name Lamprospora. 



This was the situation which confronted the writer in 1914, 

 when he undertook a preliminary monograph of this genus for 

 North America. At least three names were in common use in 

 Europe: Lamprospora by Boudier and his followers; Barlaea or 

 Barlaeina by Saccardo and his adherents; and Plicariella by 

 Lindau. Rehm's suggestion to substitute Detonia for the genus 

 had not gained any wide following. On the basis of usage, 

 what would one do under these circumstances? The writer 

 followed what appealed to him as being the most logical course 

 and adopted the name Lamprospora on the ground of priority as 

 well as usage. Since that time, this name has come into quite 

 general use throughout the world. Yet, notwithstanding this 

 fact, advocates of usage in this country have actually recom- 

 mended the overturn of the genus Lamprospora, substituting for 

 it Detonia because Rehm proposed it, although he himself never 

 followed the suggestion. If this were done we would have had 



