300 The North American Cup-Fungi 



the present work some of the conclusions adopted would need to 

 be reversed. Since, however, this work has been in general use 

 throughout the world since 1928, such a n^versal would not be 

 in the interests of stability, and those conclusions are allowed to 

 stand in the main as they were. However, in this supplementar>- 

 work an attempt has been made to follow the International Rules, 

 even though some of them, in our opinion, are not all that could 

 be desired. A few illustrations will be given: 



Chapter III, Section 3, Article 20 reads: "Legitimate botanical nomen- 

 clature begins for the different groups of plants at the following dates: 



(d) Lichenes, 1753 (Linnaeus, Species Plantarum, ed. 1). 



(e) Fungi: Uredinales, Ustilaginales and Gasteromjcetes, 1801 (Persoon, 

 Synopsis methodica fungorum). 



(f) Fungi caeteri, 1821-32 (Fries, Systema mycologicum)." 



From the above it will be seen that we have several different 

 dates for the starting points of the nomenclature of the different 

 groups of fungi, and under "f" it will be noted that we have a 

 sliding date 1821-32 for certain groups. This, in the opinion of 

 the writer, is very bad and can only lead to confusion. It will 

 be noted that the lichens, which are regarded as a highly spe- 

 cialized group of fungi, have as the starting point for their 

 nomenclature 1753, while the other ascomycetes have dates vary- 

 ing from 1821-32. 



In carrying on studies of the Patellariaceae, under the writer's 

 supervision, it was found after extended observations by Miss 

 Ellys Butler that this family, which had usually been placed with 

 the Pezizales, showed a much closer relationship wath certain 

 genera of the so-called lichens than with the non-algicolous disco- 

 mycetes. If the plants of this family are placed with the lichens 

 they have as the starting point for their nomenclature 1753. If, 

 on the other hand, they are regarded as non-algicolous disco- 

 mycetes the>- will have as the starting point 1822. Theoretically 

 at least the nomenclature of this famih' would be entirely over- 

 turned if they are regarded as lichens. This, in the writer's 

 opinion, is an unfortunate condition of affairs. Every individual 

 fungus in the last analysis has its own starting point, and we 

 believe that the first name applied to a fungus since the binomial 

 system of nomenclature was adopted should be used. If it is 

 necessary to use any other date than 1753 we believe that there 

 should at least be one date for the starting point for all fungi. 



