surmises. Mr. Brace writes me "It grows on the surface of open 

 areas, on the sides of a slight declivity which faces south where the 

 soil is scanty and composed generally of detritus from the rock mixed 

 with vegetable humus from fallen leaves. It also grows in open places 

 at the foot of the declivity and on the top of the red soil." 



LOGIC OF A NAME JUGGLER. 



"It is true that Lycoperdon echinus, "It is true that I learned from 



Batsch (1783) is an older name for the Morgan's work what the genus Catas- 

 fungus than L. unihrimim Pers. (1791), tonia is before I learned from Czernia- 

 nevertheless I hold to the latter name iev's what the genus Disciseda is." 

 as it is more appropriate, etc." Quota- "According to the principle of pri- 



tion from Dr. Holl6s, (Gas. Hung.). ority the name of the genus is the for- 



gotten Disciseda." Quotation from Dr. 

 IIoll6s, (Gas. Hung.). 



THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. 



Lycoperdon echinus BATSCH. Disciseda debreceniensis, Mar/ 



HOLLOS. 



Synonyms of "Disciseda debreceniensis <Harz,) Hollos," from 

 Hollo's' Gas. Hung. 



"Globaria Debreceniensis. Ha/1. 1^77," 

 " Bovista subterranea. Peck, iS79." 

 "Geaster Bovista, Klot/.s, 1843." 



The Doctor learned all he ever knew of the genus from Morgan's 

 work, as every one else has done, but instead of adopting the name 

 used by Morgan, he skirmishes around for an excuse to change it. 

 Finally he finds an old, vague, generic name of Czerniaiev that no 

 one had been able to interpret for fifty years, and never would have 

 been able to decipher hid it not been for Morgan's work, but which 

 gave an excuse to make "new combinations" to which the word 



^Hollos" could be added. At the time he acknowledged that the genus 



Disciseda" was so vague that not a single species could be identified. 

 Still, it is priority and makes "new combinations" and that is all name 

 jugglers are striving for. 



But in the name of consistency, why is not the specific name 



Bovista ' prior? Is not "1843" prior to "1877?" I think the Doctor's 

 conscience hurt him a little for he devotes more than a page of the 

 book to explaining why the "Laws of Priority" require him to use the 

 generic name "Disciseda." But not a word does he use to explain 

 why the same "Laws" did not require him to use the specific name 



? V t! S t a< , whlch (^cording to his own showing ar.d to a specimen 

 which he has seen and correctly referred ) is thirty four vears "prior" 

 to the specific name he adopts. To propose to use the specific name j 



debreceniensis on the ground of priority (aside from such a heathen- 

 ish name) is a farce. Had the Doctor known the history of the plant. 



ie would have known that it is not the first but the fifth specific name- 

 under which it has been described as a "new species." 



242 



