510 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XIX. No. 482. 



given by Saccardo or they have been shifted 

 from their proper historic use and do not now 

 contain their original types. Of course, in 

 some cases this is correct, since the list in- 

 cludes some metonyms vphere the type falls 

 vcithin the limits of an earlier valid genus. 

 The number of these has not been determined, 

 since it will depend on the conception of 

 generic limits and will necessarily change 

 from time to time with the increase of our 

 knowledge. As genera are now recognized it 

 probably does not exceed 20 per cent. This 

 would leave an estimated 218 valid genera to 

 100 of which, or 45 per cent., the oldest avail- 

 able name is not applied by iSaccardo. Of the 

 100 monotypes 58 appear in Saccardo under 

 their original name, while 42 must be sought 

 under other genera. In one case noted, five 

 genera have at different times been founded 

 on the same type species, and three of these 

 names are still doing duty in both Saccardo 

 and Engler and Prantl. 



Glaring inconsistencies like those might be 

 cited almost endlessly. The above, however, 

 is sufiicient to show conclusively first, that we 

 have at present no widely accepted ' prevailing 

 usage ' in regard to the names of fungus 

 genera; and secondly, that the usage that has 

 prevailed in the formation of generic names 

 has not led to stability or to the establishment 

 of any logical system of procedure. In fact, 

 the existing condition is so confused and 

 anomalous as to imperatively demand an im- 

 mediate and sweeping reform. Doubtless all 

 will now agree that any rational system of 

 nomenclature must be based strictly on 

 priority. This in itself is a long step in 

 advance, for only a generation ago the fore- 

 most systematists laid less stress on priority 

 than on the supposed appropriateness of a 

 name. The unfortunate result of their prac- 

 tices has just been passed in review. While 

 all will agree on the basic principle of priority 

 there will be divergence of opinion when the 

 attempt is made to formulate a code of rules 

 for applying it. The ideas and methods of 

 the earlier writers were so diverse from our 

 own that it is impossible to bring their work 

 into harmony with ours without adopting 

 rules and methods that are necessarily more 



or less arbitrary. It is perfectly clear that 

 they had no idea of the type of a genus or a 

 species in the sense in which we use the word 

 to-day. Their ' type,' in so far as they had 

 one, was a mental concept; and yet if we are 

 to prevent this endless shifting of generic 

 names from one group of plants to another, 

 it becomes necessary to tie down these ancient 

 concepts to the material basis of a single 

 species. The exact way in which this is to 

 be done really matters very little. No rule 

 or system of rules can possibly be devised 

 which, if consistently followed, will not throw 

 out or change the meaning of many of the 

 names accepted by modern writers. Any at- 

 tempt at reform based on a method devised 

 for the purpose' of ' saving names ' can only 

 end by adding to the existing confusion. Let 

 us then nerve our minds to the point of seeing 

 not only any, but, if necessary, all of our most 

 favored names sacrificed to consistency, and 

 unite in adopting the simplest and most direct 

 code of rules that can be agreed upon. When 

 this is once done and its provisions are carried 

 out in good faith we shall by the one cata- 

 clysmic efl^ort have placed the nomenclature 

 of our science on so firm and stable a basis 

 that we need no longer dread the appearance 

 of each succeeding contribution to mycological 

 knowledge on account of the changes in names 

 that have been so constant and so annoying 

 an accompaniment of each forward step in 

 the past. F. S. Earle. 



New Yokk Botanical Garden. 



energetics and mechanics. 

 Within the past ten years energetics has 

 been brought to the front as furnishing a 

 systematic account of phenomena that are 

 connected most directly with quantitative re- 

 lations of energy, and of its transformations. 

 To any one who has stood aloof from the 

 polemic between the ' energetic ' and the 

 ' f oreive ' view, it must seem proved that the 

 former has rendered a permanent service to 

 physics, by devising and putting into circu- 

 lation forms of statement that are freed from 

 superfluous hypothetical assumptions, and 

 brought closer to the foundations of natural 

 science in ascertained facts. For example, the 



