672 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 747 



Although the year 1753 seems eminently de- 

 sirable as the starting point for the nomenclature 

 of the spermatophytes, the use of this date among 

 the lower groups, as for instance the algae, appears 

 not only highly inexpedient but well-nigh farcical. 

 Among the flowering plants both genera and spe- 

 cies had by 1753 been interpreted with a tolerable 

 degree of definiteness, and their descriptions were 

 at that time drawn with sufficient understanding 

 of morphological and diagnostic features to make 

 them in general intelligible to future generations. 

 On the other hand, at the date of Linnaeus's 

 " Species Plantarum " the knowledge of the algse 

 was far too crude to form a satisfactory basis for 

 their classification or nomenclature. Even the 

 optical appliances necessary for the intelligent 

 examination of this group had not been invented. 

 What is here said of the algse is quite as true of 

 the fungi and applies in lesser degree even to the 

 bryophytes and pteridophytes. Furthermore, the 

 great difficulty or impossibility of preserving 

 specimens in several of the lower groups, and the 

 consequent fact that no type specimens are now 

 extant for a large proportion of the species of the 

 lower orders, render it all the more imperative 

 that the beginning of nomenclature in these 

 groups should not be carried back to a time of 

 brief, vague and unintelligent descriptions. 



In consideration of these facts it seems de- 

 sirable that in the nomenclature of the spermato- 

 phytes priority should be reckoned from the pub- 

 lication of Linnasus's " Species Plantarum " in 

 1753, but in the case of all other groups, from a 

 date near 1800, to be more exactly determined by 

 a committee of specialists in cryptogamic botany, 

 appointed by the International Congress in what- 

 ever manner it may seem best.° 



Acting witli a knowledge of the facts so 

 comprehensively stated in the quotation just 

 given certain algologists are advocating the 

 selection of much more recent dates as the 

 points of departure for the nomenclature of 

 certain groups. Why shoiild not students of 

 the fungi do the same; and, if any such action 

 is to be taken, what is the most desirable date 

 to be selected? The writer has seen only a 

 single definite proposition bearing on the 

 selection of such a starting-point, and ven- 

 tures to offer the following suggestions in the 

 hope that they may stimulate discussion of the 

 matter. 



- " Amendments to the Paris Code of Botanical 

 Nomenclature," p. 13, 1904. 



It may be well to point out at once some of 

 the considerations which should have weight 

 in the selection of a starting-point for myco- 

 logical nomenclature. In the first place there 

 should be, if possible, a common point of de- 

 parture for all groups of fungi. Secondly, 

 the date selected should be early enough to in- 

 clude the greatest possible number of pub- 

 lished names. Thirdly, it should, if possible, 

 mark the beginning of some important epoch 

 in mycological history. Fourthly, the person- 

 age whose work is chosen should be one of the 

 most prominent in the development of syste- 

 matic mycology. Fifthly, the specific work 

 selected should be a comprehensive one which 

 deals with all the principal groups, which sum* 

 marizes what has been done before, and 

 which, in a word, bears about the same rela- 

 tion to the classification of fungi that Lin- 

 nseus's " Species Plantarum " does- to that of 

 the vascular plants. Sisthly, and perhaps 

 most important, it should be the work of a 

 person who preserved a considerable propor- 

 tion of the specimens on which his publications 

 were based, and whose collection is now avail- 

 able for examination, so that his names can 

 be fixed with some degree of definiteness. 



It would be too much to expect that any one 

 work should be in all respects ideal, and it 

 would be impossible to select one which would 

 not be open to some objection, but the one 

 which in the opinion of the writer comes the 

 nearest to fulfilling all the requirements named 

 above is Persoon's " Synopsis Methodica Fun- 

 gorum," published in 1801. 



A brief historical sketch will make clearer 

 the reasons' for this opinion. The develop- 

 ment of systematic mycology covers three 

 quite distinct periods, each of which is marked 

 by its own peculiar point of view and char- 

 acteristic method of work. These may be 

 designated as (1) the pre-Persoonian period or 

 period of the illustrators, (2) the Persoon- 

 Friesian period or period of the sj^tematiats, 

 and (3) the modern period or period of the 

 morphologists. The first period covers ap- 

 proximately the last three quartere of the 

 eighteenth century, extending from about 

 1725 to about 1800, and as characteristic may 



