104 IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



viously recognized species but adopts as his gaide in nomen- 

 clature the rule "laid down by A. L Condolle in 1868, *• - * 

 that the first authentic specific name published under the genus 

 in which the species now stands shall take precedence of all 

 others;'' a rule which seems to me as unfair in its proposals as 

 absurd in the results to which it leads. Under the operation of 

 this rule Rosstafinski's synonyms is made to overturn his own 

 nomenclature, and this in a multitude of instances. 



Now, I have no disposition to defend Rostafinski. As before 

 said, his nomenclature, whatever apology we may offer, admits 

 in many cases of small defense; but in fact Rostafinski needs no 

 defender. If any man chooses some other prior name for a 

 species listed by the illustrious Pole, upon him devolves the 

 burden of proof; he must show that the form described by Ros- 

 tafinski is that referred to by the earlier author. No one who 

 has studied these forms and has attempted their specific identi- 

 fication, even with the most carefully drawn descriptions before 

 him, but will appreciate the futility of an effort to apply the 

 old and brief descriptions. Even so-called authentic specimens 

 are hard to authenticate. Slime-moulds are perishable things 

 and labels are liable to become mixed, even in the best her- 

 baria as we all know. To aver of a species described by Ros- 

 tafinski that it is the same as that sketched in a line or two 

 by Persoon or Link, is an undertaking too bold for me. Even 

 where the species described is figured, the figure is often per- 

 fectly valueless for complete assurance. Take Schrader for 

 instance, whose copper plates of a hundred years ago are 

 among the best pre-Rostafinskian illustrations in the group we 

 study, and even these are disappointing in the extreme. The 

 figure of Dictydium umbilicaium S. is portrayed in life-like 

 fashion but is unluckily an only species. The species of Cri- 

 brarla to which Schrader gave name, are some of them fairly 

 shown but not in the details by which the species may be every- 

 where distinguished. C. macrocar%)a the artist missed entirely 

 and fell instead into a bit of arabesque which has nowhere the 

 slightest counterpart in nature. Schrader's descriptions are 

 very much better than those of most writers of his day, and 

 yet they Jail to distinguish as we now discriminate since Rosta- 

 finski taught us how. The fact is that when Rostafinski gives 

 credit to his predecessors it is for the most part purely a work 

 of courtesy and grace. There is nothing in the work itself to 

 command such consideration. The man who in his search for 



