62 



CLASSIFICATION OF THE SPH^ERIACEI. 



By the Editor. 



The observations of Mr. C. B. Plowright in the last number 

 of" Grevillea," will be interesting and useful to many of our readers, 

 and demand but little comment. It must be expected that 

 different workers will have different views concerning those some- 

 what elastic terms " Genera" and " Species/' Far be it from 

 us to assume dogmatically in this instance, and in others of a 

 similar character, that we are right, and those who differ from 

 us are wrong. Still, there is an observation or two which we 

 would offer on the principles of classification generally, and on 

 this classification of the Sphseriacei in particular that may 

 be worthy of consideration. In the first place, is it 

 true that because a genus, like that of Spha?ria, is so large, 

 it becomes a duty to lessen it, by splitting it up into smaller 

 genera ? That would seem to be the inference to be drawn 

 from the paragraph on page 46. It seems to us that however in- 

 convenient a large genus may be, some better grounds must be 

 sought for its " modification." Before any attempt is made at 

 the " modification" of a genus, we apprehend that it would be 

 beneficial to have one or two recognized principles upon which to 

 proceed, and, in the classification of the genus Splicer ia under new 

 groups, having the value of genera, there seems to be one 

 important feature which should be kept in mind. The form and 

 segmentation of sporidia alone may be of specific, but cannot at 

 the same time be of generic value. Want of attention to this 

 which we hold to be a cardinal doctrine has given us a host of 

 names for proposed genera of Spha>riacei which serve more to 

 encumber and mystify a difficult subject than any other purpose. 

 It may be useful to recognize groups of species having similar 

 sporidia, as in Raphidospora, and call those groups by any con- 

 venient or characteristic name, so long as they are recognized 

 at their proper, and not invested with a fictitious value. We 

 make these remarks less in opposition to our good friend Mr. 

 Plowright than in extenuation of our own sins in not adopting in 

 the " Handbook" a larger number of continental genera. We 

 cannot accept the majority of genera in Sphcvria and Peziza 

 adopted by Fuckel and others, because they are established on 

 insufficient characters, derived solely from the sporidia. Perhaps 

 the genus Gnomonia, including such rostellate species as Sphceria 

 gnomon, claims recognition, but with that exception we do not yet 

 see any good reason to amend the classification we have adopted. 

 The division of Splicvriacei into Vegetabilicoli and Funicoli, is, we 

 fear, a very weak point in Fuckel's classification. 



