: 1902), GENERIC NOMENCLATURE 223 
more species, the last of which was V. fae. Now note the 
_ treatment of this genus by two recent authors, Saccardo ® and 
— and Lindau." Saccardo included most of the species originally 
referred to the genus by its authors and added a considerable 
_ umber of others. Lindau cites De Notaris as the sole author 
of the genus, and restricts it to two species, only one of which 
_ ismentioned, V. #liae, which was referred to the genus by De 
_ Notaris (7. c.), but was not included in it by the original authors, 
_ and was soon after taken as the type of the genus Hercospora by 
- Tulasne.* It is scarcely worth while to multiply examples; 
Gees one who cares to look into the matter will find them without 
difficulty and in endless variety. For some cases of a similar 
_ ‘ort among genera of ferns consult Underwood.'s 
ae It has been urged that instances of this kind are exceptional, 
g Dut any one who takes the trouble to investigate the matter will 
find that they are exasperatingly frequent among the fungi, and 
Tam told by those who have investigated the matter that the 
‘@S€ Is practically the same in other groups. The instances in 
which old generic names have been entirely displaced or trans- 
ferred to different plants from those originally included are 
Samed and arise generally from the lack of uniformity oe 
hicus “Se or segregation of large or composite co : 
agi. o vided into several subgenera, these are in turn 
+9 generic ran 
left wi 
, a author never included in it or at least did not regard — 
~~ Bldance in : ane : pie ae 
Was that the segregation of large or composite genera 
ian. divisé en deux ou plusieurs, le nom doit étre con- : 
__ dong a l'une des divisions principales. Si le genre contenait — 
: oo Fung. 1: 741. 1882. eee 
* Eng. and Prantl Pflanzenfamilien I. 1: 470. 1897. 
ent ade Fung. Carp. 2: 154. S 1863. oe 
LM. Rev. Gen, Ferns, Mem. Torr. Bot. Club 6:251 and 279- 
° BE k, the original name being entirely displaced 2 es 
“t with an undeterminable or miscellaneous residue, which 
attempt, so far as we know, to formulate any rule 
of the Paris code, article 54 of which reads as follows: a 
