(396 ) 
SysTEMS OF CLASSIFICATION 
It is difficult to propose a satisfactory arrangement for the 
genera of this family. They do not present an orderly pro- 
gression from lower and simpler to higher and more complex 
forms, but can be likened rather to an amoeba-like body with 
arms extending in various directions. Thus the chanterelles 
and their allies shade off so imperceptibly into the Thele- 
phoraceae that authorities are not agreed as to where to draw 
the line between them. FPazus is related to Lenzztes and the 
other lamellate Polyporaceae. Paxzllus has some of the 
characters of the Boletaceae, while Coprznus with its delique- 
scent lamellae points clearly in the direction of Gyrophrag- 
mium and similar forms among the Gasteromycetes. No 
character can be selected for the primary division of this mass 
into groups that will not result at some point in the artificial 
separation of clearly related forms. Fries, whose system of 
classification is the one still usually followed, after first lop- 
ping off a few outlying groups, based his primary division on 
the color of the spores. His other generic or, rather, sub- 
generic characters were based for the most part on the mode 
of attachment of the lamellae, whether free, adnexed, adnate, 
or decurrent; on the nature of the stem, whether fleshy and 
uniform in texture or slender and tubular with a cartilaginous 
cortex; and on the presence or absence of an annulus or 
volva. The use of these few characters often resulted in the 
bringing together under the same generic or subgeneric name 
of great numbers of rather incongruous species which it was 
necessary to subdivide into sections. Quélet’s contribution 
was simply that of raising Fries’s subgenera to generic rank 
without in the least altering the scheme of the classification. 
Karsten went further. He evidently intended to make each 
generic name stand for a homogeneous clearly related group 
of species. To accomplish this he recognized numerous 
other characters as of generic rank and named as genera 
many of the sectional groups of Fries. His characters were 
still for the most part macroscopic. Patouillard, Fayod, and 
Maire have used microscopic, histological and cytological 
