102 REVISION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN HYDNACEAE 
New England botanists. Professor Earle has noted that Hydnum 
repandum as collected by him in Connecticut was a very different 
thing from the plant of that alliance with which he had been 
acquainted in Alabama. 
It is hoped that the present contribution may lead to a clearer 
conception respecting the species of this family and be a means of 
stimulating a more exact study of the distribution of these plants. 
It can hardly be expected that all confusion has been removed or 
that all errors have been avoided. The source of many of our 
present difficulties is to be traced back to the work of early Euro- 
pean botanists, whose material is either inaccessible or has long 
since passed into an irrecoverable oblivion. The author believes 
that in the majority of cases, with respect to the species included 
in this paper, he has formed a clear conception of them in his own 
mind and has endeavored to present that conception as definitely 
and distinctly as he was able in the accompanying descriptions 
and synopses. Whether he has in all cases made an absolutely 
correct determination, especially in the case of species referred to 
old European types, he cannot state with complete confidence. 
NOMENCLATURE 
In the determination of questions of nomenclature we have 
conformed closely to the Philadelphia code.* There is a case 
of a peculiar character, however, which needs some further com- 
ment. In 1878 М. C. Cooke and L. Quélet published together a 
Clavis Synoptica Hymenomycetum Europaeorum. This work was 
based upon Fries’ Hymenomycetes Europaei and followed his clas- 
sification. Іп connection with the subgroups of the genus Hyd- 
пит there were published in parentheses the generic names Sar- 
codon, Calodon, Pleurodon, and Dryodon ascribed to Quélet. It has 
been customary among botanists to regard this work as the place 
of origin of Quélet's genera. But the names of the species in each 
group were not made to agree in gender with these names but 
continued in agreement with Hydnum which was printed as the 
name of the genus. There were, therefore, no binomial combina- 
tions of these genera published in this work and hence the genera 
were not published according to our accepted rules. Г 
* Cf. Bull. Torrey Club 31: 249. 
