1036 



SCIENCE. 



L-N. f>. V.L. XVI No. 417. 



proposed as compared with Toiirnefort. Two, 

 — 1737 and 1753 — are perhaps sufficient to 

 notice; they ai-e practically the only ones that 

 have been used as the basis of serious or sys- 

 tematic efforts to revise our nomenclature. 

 The date of the appearance of the first edition 

 of ' Species Plantarum,' 1753, is very natu- 

 rally and properly taken as the starting- point 

 for specific nomenclature, as this was the first 

 attempt to apply binomials in a systematic 

 manner to a large niuuber of species; but why 

 it should be taken as the date for genera is 

 not so evident. Linuasus's genera were not 

 first described here, but in previous editions 

 of his ' Genera Plantarum.' Hence Kimze's 

 proposition to start with 1737, the date of the 

 first edition of that work, is much more just 

 and logical. But here practical difficulties 

 arise in securing tj'pes, as no particular species 

 is mentioned in connection with the generic 

 diagnoses; whereas Toumefort's genera are 

 not only described, but accompanied by lists 

 of described species and excellent illustra- 

 tions of at least one species of nearly every 

 genus. Why thrust upon Linnseus the honor 

 of founding genera when his most ardent ad- 

 mirers, so far as we are aware, have never 

 claimed it for him? 



From the standpoint of the mycologist 

 either 1737 or 1753 is a most absurd date. 

 Linnseus recognized but 11 genera of fungi. 

 These were simply taken from his predeces- 

 sors and renamed or rearranged. Tourne- 

 fort described but 7 genera, and from this 

 standpoint alone would have little more claim 

 upon the mycologist than Linnajus. If, how- 

 ever, we have a single starting point for all 

 plant genera, as seems desirable, Tournefort 

 would be far preferable to Linnasus; as it 

 would admit Mieheli, one of the greatest 

 mycologists of the eighteenth century, who 

 in 1729, in his great work ' Nova Plantarum 

 Genera,' described 31 genera of fungi, most 

 of which were illustrated with excellent fig- 

 ures. Linnaeus himself in his ' Bibliotheca 

 Botanica ' pays the following tribute to this 

 acute observer: Botanicorum vere Lynceus 

 est in examinandis et depingendis minutissi- 

 mis floriivs Mitscorum et Fungorum. 



To discard or ignore the work of Mieheli, 



whose only crime was polynomialism, would 

 be a great injustice which we do not believe 

 our posterity would ever uphold. It would 

 be far better to have a separate initial date 

 for fungi than to accept either 1737 or 1753 

 as a general starting point. 



The fact that Tournefort was a polyno- 

 mialist might suggest itself to some as a pos- 

 sible difficulty. Scarcely any inconvenience 

 need arise from this, however, as whatever 

 species might be selected as the type of the 

 genus, it would bear the oldest specific name 

 it received subsequent to 1753. I fancy the 

 greatest objection of some, however, to 1700 

 as a starting point, would be the supposed 

 amoiint of change necessitated. This objec- 

 tion should have very little weight, if future 

 stability and permanency can be secured. No ' 

 temporary makeshift should be accepted 

 which may involve a minimum of inunediate 

 change, but necessitate another revision a few 

 years hence. We should have something 

 which gives reasonable hope of meeting the 

 needs of the present generation at least. 



C. L. Shear. 



Washingtojt, D. C. 



jiosquito development and hibernation. 



Dr. Harbison G. Dyar's observations upon 

 ' The Egg-s of Mosqviitoes of the Genus Culex,' 

 as given in Science, Vol. XVI., No. 408, are 

 in line with those made by us during the 

 past season. We doubt, however, the wisdom 

 of the divisions into unhanded legged forms 

 deiJositing egg-s in boat-shaped masses, and 

 banded forms depositing singly. We have 

 failed yet to get boat-shaped masses of eggs 

 from any species other than pipiens and con- 

 sohrimis. 



The matter of the floating of the eggs of 

 mosquitoes is largely one of circumstance, as 

 those of most species, barring, of course, 

 those of the genus Anopheles^ sink with slight 

 agitation, unless they become attached to 

 drifting debris, common upon most pools in 

 which mosquitoes breed. The facility with 

 which the majority of eggs sinlj iTsually war- 

 rants delay in hatching, and renders hiberna- 

 tion more than probable in the case of many 

 species. 



