~ | 
a i ll a. | eee ae 
a 
1897 | CURRENT LITERATURE 129 
THE PUBLICATION of such papers as the recent ‘‘ Rearrangement of the 
North American Hyphomycetes,” by Messrs. Pound and Clements, cannot but 
be a matter of regret to all who hope to see some element of order introduced 
into the existing chaos which confronts anyone who attempts to concern him- 
self with a systematic study of the fungi. Although the paper is in some 
respects less open to censure than one of its predecessors (Botanical Studies, 
CV which was noticed in a former number of the GAZETTE, both repre- 
sent a type of botanical activity which is to be deplored. For, although the 
sin apnea of “Rearrangements” may be a comparatively harmless process 
o long as it does not, by increasing the existing number of synonyms, serve 
to increase the difficulties of the subject rearranged through the further com- 
plication of a confusion already sufficiently confounded, the right to make 
such wholesale changes in synonymy as are here proposed can be conceded 
only to the skilled monographer who shows a knowledge of his subject suf- 
ficiently wide and accurate to give weight to his opinions. That these con- 
ditions have not been fulfilled in the present instance is indicated by even a 
cursory examination, the errors of compilation alone, although they are matters 
of no consequence in themselves, being sufficient to throw doubt on its accuracy 
in other respects. Taking a few instances at random we find the genus Fusi- 
dium credited with about one-quarter of the species “reported” from this 
country; Cylindrium and Monilia with about one-half, and so on; even the 
smaller genera being not always correctly represented. It seems incredible 
that anyone familiar with Corda's figures of Hyphomycetes, or who sees the 
Bulletin of the Mycological Society of France, should retain the genus Synthe- 
tospora which already has three synonyms; while discarding entirely as 
‘related to Aspergillus” a genus like Thaxter’s Gonatorrhodiella in which 
the indeterminate basipetal spore formation of the last-mentioned genus is 
replaced by one that is determinate and acropetal, not to mention other differ- 
ences. If no place is left among the Hyphomycetes for filing “‘ Aspergillus "’ 
while they may contain species connected with more than one genus of 
“perfect” forms. The rearrangement of species, if anyone may judge from 
a hasty examination of the lists of new combinations given, seems also 
based on a none too intimate knowledge of the forms with which such liber- 
ties are taken. In a genus like Oospora, which has no characters to speak of, 
it is a matter of little concern whether we use this name or Alysidium to 
designate a collection of forms concerning the position and relationships of 
which we are for the most part ignorant; but in a group like the Helico- 
sporez there is no excuse for incorrectly mixing up species unknown to the 
rearranger ; as has for example been done by putting e/icosporium Curtzsiz 
