April 2, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



481 



as could be expected; and is perhaps no 

 more imperfect than ours will appear to 

 mycologists aad pathologists a century 

 hence. 



Beginning about 1850, there was a great 

 change and improvement in methods and 

 aims in mycological work. The two most 

 conspicuous men of this period were De 

 Bary and Tulasne, who understood a care- 

 ful comparative study of all that was known 

 of the morphology and physiology of fungi, 

 as well as original investigations of the life 

 histories of the organisms. At the same 

 time Berkeley in England, while devoting 

 his time chiefly to descriptive work, gave 

 much attention to the pathological aspects 

 of the subject and published a very im- 

 portant series of papers in the Gardener's 

 Chronicle (1854) on "Vegetable Pathol- 

 ogy." In this connection, M. C. Cooke, 

 who has recently passed away, should be 

 mentioned. In America Farlow, Bessey 

 and Burrill first introduced laboratory 

 methods of studying fungi, taking up the 

 work along the lines indicated by De Bary 

 and Tulasne. 



NOMENCLATURE 



In considering the various phases of my- 

 cology in their relation to plant pathology, 

 the subject of nomenclature deserves men- 

 tion. The plant pathologist as well as the 

 mycologist must use plant names. It is 

 therefore important that this matter should 

 be given careful consideration, in order to 

 devise means of securing as nearly as pos- 

 sible uniformity and stability of usage. 

 Unfortunately at present there is no gener- 

 ally accepted method of accomplishing 

 these ends. It is therefore desirable that 

 pathologists take an active interest in this 

 subject and assist in determining what the 

 fundamental requirements are to secure 

 uniformity and stability and exercise their 

 influence to secure the general adoption of 



such regulations. One of the subjects of 

 most fundamental importance in this con- 

 nection is that of types. It does not seem 

 possible to secure any great degree of uni- 

 formity in the use of names until generic 

 and specific names are fixed to definite 

 types. Teachers of mycology and pathol- 

 ogists should consider these matters in a 

 scientific spirit and without reference to 

 personal preference or professional afSlia- 

 tions. 



Closely related to this subject is that of 

 terminology in general. There is at pres- 

 ent a decided lack of accuracy and uni- 

 formity in the use of the various technical 

 terms used in mycology and pathology. 

 With the exception of the rusts, the de- 

 scriptive terms used have not been ac- 

 curately defined and coordinated in accord- 

 ance with our present knowledge ; e. g., the 

 term conidium is variously applied to spores 

 produced either on external sporophores or 

 within pycnidia. There is also lack of gen- 

 eral agreement and uniformity in regard to 

 the names applied to the various conidial 

 and pycnidial forms of the Ascomycetes. 

 We have such terms as stylospore, sperma- 

 tium, micro- and macro-pycnospore, micro- 

 and macro-conidium variously applied by 

 different writers. 



Of great importance also to the patholo- 

 gist is the standardizing of methods and 

 technique as far as possible. Though abso- 

 lute standards in these matters can not 

 well be attained, effort should be made to 

 approximate definite standards as closely 

 as possible. 



TAXONOMY 



Mycology formerly consisted chiefly of 

 the identification of old species and the 

 describing of so-called new species. This 

 of course was natural and necessary, as 

 there was a vast unknown group of organ- 

 isms most of which had not been named or 

 described. Unfortunately, the overwhelm- 



