Apbil 23, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



673 



be cited the work done by Vaillant, Micheli, 

 Sclunidel, Schaeffer, Batsch, Holmskjold, 

 Bulliard, Paulet and Sowerby. These men 

 were all essentially illustrators. In their pub- 

 lications the larger and more conspicuous 

 fungi were figured with some care and usually 

 in color. Their plates were accompanied by 

 descriptive text which, of course, dealt only 

 with the gross and external features of the 

 plants discussed. In most cases names were 

 applied to the plants illustrated. Before the 

 time of Linnaeus these were mostly descriptive 

 polynomials, but later the binomial method of 

 designation was employed. Although the il- 

 lustrators came to group their species in sev- 

 eral genera on the basis of the most obvious 

 superficial resemblances, no attempts were 

 made by any of them to perfect a systematic 

 arrangement of the fungi which could be at 

 all compared with those which had been 

 worked out for the flowering plants during the 

 same time. In only a few instances have any 

 of the fungi illustrated in this period been 

 preserved so that aside from the information 

 conveyed by the descriptions and figures we 

 have no means of determining what plants the 

 authors had before them. The writer has al- 

 ready attempted to show that the majority of 

 the species of fungi described in this period 

 can not be recognized with certainty at the 

 present time, when measured according to 

 present-day standards. The information about 

 fungi in this period was in a much more crude 

 and unsystematized state than that which pre- 

 vailed concerning the spermatophytes before 

 the time of Linnaeus. It is primarily of his- 

 torical rather than scientific interest, and con- 

 sequently can be left out of consideration 

 without any resulting serious loss to scientific 

 knowledge. Surely no logical starting-point 

 for mycological nomenclature can be found in 

 this archaic period. 



The second period of mycological history 

 covers approximately the first two thirds of the 

 nineteenth century, extending from 1800 to 

 about 1865. With the advent of Persoon a 

 complete change came over the aspect of myco- 

 logical study. The attention of workers was 

 turned from the illustration of fungi to their 

 classification and systematic arrangement. 



The work of this strange man in his garret at 

 Paris either directly or indirectly profoundly 

 influenced that of such students as Wahlen- 

 berg. Fries, Schumacher, Nees von Esenbeck, 

 Corda, Ditmar, Eabenhorst, Schweinitz, 

 Duby, Desmazieres, Leveille, Montague, de 

 Notaris, Berkeley, Broome and many others 

 who came after him, and whose names are 

 familiar as household words to the mycol- 

 ogist. As the result of their labors immense 

 numbers of new species were brought to light, 

 their external features described, and arranged 

 according to the then .approved systems of 

 classification. This method of work char- 

 acterized the second or Persoon-Priesian 

 period of mycological development. 



While Persoon's publications before 1800 

 were of minor extent, yet they introduced 

 an entirely new point of view. Persoon really 

 originated systematic mycology. The " Syn- 

 opsis Methodica Fungorum," of 1801, is one 

 of the few epoch-making mycological publi- 

 cations. Not only was it the pioneer work of 

 its kind, but it became the direct foundation 

 of the Friesian system of arrangement which 

 remained in almost universal use for half a 

 century. While the Persoon-Friesian meth- 

 ods of classification are not those in use to- 

 day, they were probably the best which the ex- 

 isting knowledge of fungi permitted, and they 

 undoubtedly served their purpose fully as 

 well as did the Linn»an system among the 

 seed-plants. 



Persoon's " Synopsis " was' a comprehensive 

 work in that aU the groups of fungi known at 

 the time were treated. It was synoptical in 

 that its author went over the works of his 

 predecessors, brought together the scattered 

 descriptions, and either incorporated the 

 names' directly or arranged them as synonyms 

 as seemed to him warranted by the evidence 

 at his command. The " Synopsis Methodica 

 Fungorum " therefore bears about the same 

 relation to the systematic arrangement of the 

 fungi that Linnseus's " Species Plantarimi " 

 does to that of the spermatophytes. The 

 same reasons which led to the adoption of the 

 latter as the starting-point for the nomen- 

 clature of the higher plants should cause Per- 

 soon's work to be chosen for that of the fungi. 



