HISTORY. When I received this plant I was unable to find any description 

 that seemed to me to at all apply to it. The nearest was Tremella fusiformis, 

 with which I was not familiar. I sent it to Dr. Farlow, and he kindly advises me 

 it is the same plant that was called by Berkeley n " Corticium tremellinum var. 

 reticulatum " (sic.) The plant would therefore, according to the celebrated prin- 

 ciple " I saw it first " be named Tremella reticulata. 12 It appears to me to be 

 absurd, and unjust to the plant, to call it Tremella reticulata, when it was not 

 reticulate, because it had been named Corticium, var. reticulatum, when it 

 never had the most remote resemblance to a Corticium. I took up the matter 

 with Professor McGinty and he wrote me he would call it Tremella clavarioides, 

 and I have adopted his name. 13 



TREMELLA AURANTIA (Fig. 225). Plant two to three inches 



Fig. 225 

 Tremella aurantia. 



n The plant in Saccardo bears the advertisement "Berkeley and Ravenel" but if it is 

 true that it was so named, the naming was done by Berkeley. Some day we expect to devote 

 some remarks to the system of advertising in double platoons, nine-tenths of which is a double 

 fraud. In this case Ravenel had nothing to do with it, not even to pick it up. The plant is 

 attributed to Michener of Penn. and was sent to Berkeley by Curtis. 



12 since this article was written we note that Professor Farlow has taken this view of it. 

 ,Cfr. Rhodora, January, 1908 



13 Professor McGinty informs me this was done in accordance with Article 5 of the Rules 

 of the Poseyville Fungus Forage Club. 



" When a new-species-hunter is so careless in his work that he puts a plant in a genus 

 where it has no possible relationships and gives it a specific name with no application to the 

 plant, owing to the poor quality of his work it becomes null and void and the plant shall be 

 placed in the genus where it belongs and a suitable name given to it." 



