Apeil 23, 1909] 



SCIENCE 



675 



more modem ideas of classification are made 

 use of. There is, however, no great epoch- 

 making work in this period which is adapted 

 to being made such a starting-point, and, 

 moreover, the selection of such a late date 

 would exclude a very large proportion of the 

 known genera and species of fungi, which had 

 been described before the period began. 



The question wiU naturally arise in the 

 minds of some Why, after all, is it necessary 

 to fix a special date for the beginning of nom- 

 enclature of the fungi? It is manifestly im- 

 possible to adopt any starting-point which will 

 effectually remove from consideration all the 

 vague and uncertain names. Why not leave 

 the matter open? Let monographers trace the 

 history of each species and adopt the earliest 

 name which can with certainty be applied to 

 it, and relegate the uncertain names to the 

 limbo of species ignotas. One may reply to 

 such objections that the whole matter is one 

 of expediency; that while many of the names 

 published after 1801 must always remain un- 

 determinable on account of the absence of 

 authentic specimens, the majority can be 

 definitely identified because the describers 

 preserved the specimens on which the names 

 were based; that while some of the names 

 published before 1801 were applied to plants 

 so unique that they can be placed with reason- 

 able certainty without specimens, the major- 

 ity can never be accurately, or even approxi- 

 mately, determined for the reasons already 

 pointed out; that as long as the way remains 

 open attempts will be made continually (as 

 has been done in the past) to revive these 

 archaic names on the basis of supposition and 

 a discussion of the probabilities in each case, 

 a kind of reasoning which can never lead to 

 definite conclusions, but which must always 

 be productive of uncertainty and difference of 

 opinion, with a consequent continued un- 

 settled condition of the nomenclature of even 

 the commonest fungi. For these reasons the 

 writer believes that a special starting-point 

 should be adopted so that a large proportion of 

 these vague, indefinite, unintelligently char- 

 acterized names which can never be definitely 

 fixed should be effectually disposed of. 



The writer would, therefore, urge the 



adoption of Persoon's " Synopsis Methodica 

 Fungorum," of 1801, as the starting-point for 

 mycological nomenclature for the following 

 reasons : 



1. The names applied to fungi before the 

 time of Persoon should be excluded from con- 

 sideration for the reason that the majority of 

 them can never be definitely and certainly 

 identified. 



2. Any publication in the modem period 

 is too recent and exclusive, a large proportion 

 of the systematic work with fungi having been 

 done before it began. 



3. Its date of publication is early enough to 

 include a great majority of the published 

 names of fimgi, and nearly all of those which 

 can be certainly fixed at the present time. 



4. Its publication marks the beginning of 

 the second important epoch in mycological 

 history, that of the scientific study of fungi. 



5. It is the first important systematic work 

 of the founder of systematic mycology, and is 

 therefore the logical point with which to be- 

 ,gin the nomenclature of the subject. 



6. It is a comprehensive work which can be 

 used as well as' any other as the coromon 

 point of departure for all groups of fungi. 



1. It is a synoptical work which sum- 

 marizes what had been done before its time, so 

 that it bears about the same relation to the 

 classification of fungi that the " Species 

 Plantarum" of Linnseus does to that of the 

 seed-plants. 



8. Persoon's herbarium is in existence and 

 is available for study, so that a considerable 

 proportion of his names can be fixed with a 

 degree of definiteness which is impossible for 

 those published before his time. 



9. It possesses an advantage over the 

 " Systema Mycologiciun " of Fries in that it 

 was published within the limits of a single 

 year in which no other important work on 

 mycology appeared, so that it stands alone in 

 a class by itself at the beginning of an epoch. 



10. The adoption of this date would remove 

 the incentive for much guess-work and 

 speculation on the probable identity of many 

 of the vaguely and unintelligently described or 

 crudely figured species of fungi, which must 

 always remain incapable of certain identifica- 



