time no extended study of the generic nomenclature of this group of fungi had 

 been attempted, and the conclusions of Dr. Kuntze {Rev. Gen. PI. Ill) were ac- 

 cepted as the most satisfactory at hand. Since then the ground has been gone 

 over to some extent, and some questions worth public discussion have arisen. 

 Among the most interesting of these is the correct appellation of the cedar apples. 



Two species of cedar apples occur in Indiana; both forming swellings, or 

 pseudo-apples, on the branchlets of red cedar in one stage of growth, and so-called 

 rust spots on the leaves of various apples and thorns in the alternate stage. These 

 were placed under the genus Puccinia, following the authority of Dr. Kuntze, one 

 being Puccinia c/loboaa (Farl.) Kuntze ( Oymnosporanfjium globosum Farl. and Bces- 

 telia lacerata Fr. ), and the other being Puccinia Juniperi-Virginiance (Schw.) Arth. 

 {Gymnosporanglum rnacropnn Lk. and R<rstelia pyrala Thax.). 



The development of the concept, now embodied in the genus containing the 

 cedar apples and apple rusts, is an interesting one. Many of the earlier system- 

 atists placed the cedar apples among the algse, and even after becoming fully 

 recognized as fungi, it was long before their close relation to the other Uredinece 

 was firmly established. The apple rusts have been confounded with the cluster- 

 cups of other genera, even quite recently, although it has now been nearly forty 

 years since their connection with the cedar stage was first established. However, 

 it is not with the development of the concept of the genus that this paper has to 

 deal, but with the unfolding of its nomenclature. 



Reviving the ancient usage of the generic name Puccinia in order to have it 

 replace the familiar name Gymnoaporangium was done in the interest of a stable 

 nomenclature. The result shows, however, that a stable nomenclature is not to 

 be obtained at a single dash, even when the principles are recognized and ac- 

 cepted that are to govern the procedure. Dr. Kuntze ( Rev. Gen. PI. , Vol. 3, p. 507) 

 gives Haller, 1742 (Enum., Vol. 1, p. 17), the credit of founding the genus 

 Puccinia, but Magnus (Bot. Centr., Voi.77, p. 4) has clearly shown that Mailer's 

 t»ype material could not have belonged to the Uredinece.. The next subsequent 

 author mentioned by Kuntze is Adanson, 1763. In accordance with the Roches- 

 ter Code, Haller is excluded from consideration on account of antedating 1753, 

 the initial date for priority, but Adanson might be accepted. This author pre- 

 sents an abbreviated diagnosis derived wholly from Micheli's classical work Nova 

 Plantarum of 1729. It runs as follows: ^^ Puccinia Mich. t. 92. Tige elevee 

 cilind, simple ou rameuse. Coriuce. Toutela plante est formee de piramides ou filets en 

 massues, couchea comme autant de rayons les uns sur les autres" (Families de« Plante, 

 Vol. 2, p. 8). Turning to Micheli, we find that he describes and figures two 

 species under his genus, one evidently belonging to the Uredinece and the other 



