172 The Botanical Gazette. [Marcb, 
FoR THE LAST paper entitled “A study of some Minnesota Myceto- 
zoa,” Mr. Sheldon deserves severe censure. We have known Mr.Shel- 
don heretofore as a student of the very difficult genus Astragalus, in 
which his work has received sharp criticism, some undeserved and some 
doubtless deserved. His appearance as a reviser of genera in the fa 
more obscure Mycetozoa is therefore a great surprise. It is quite im 
Possible to believe that a student of as few years standing as the author 
of this paper can be entitled to speak upon both Astragali and Myce 
tozoa. Had Mr. Sheldon confined his publication to a list of Minne 
sota Mycetozoa, under names accepted by any monograph, he would 
have done a real service. But when ina list of forty-two species he 
proposes twenty-five new names (with long lists of synonyms in whi 
we can have no confidence), he not only stultifies himself but doesit 
teparable harm. The case, however, is even worse. Not content with 
dumping about the Minnesota species the rubbish of worthless namé 
constructed from book synonymy, Mr. Sheldon proceeds to “indicate 
the nomenclature of sixty-odd species with which he had no immedi: 
ate concern. It is difficult to refrain from imputing unworthy motives 
in censuring such a flagrant abuse of liberty of publication. 
While Mr. Sheldon is the chief sinner, we cannot but feel that the 
editor of the Minnesota Botanical Studies by permitting the publica 
tion of this paper, has, not only done harm to the science of taxonom 
but has put into the hands of conservatives in nomenclature a kee! 
weapon which they will not hesitate to use against the advocates of 
reasonable reforms. 
