11 T O R R E Y A 



the fact that there is no general agreement as to whether the fungi are^ 

 monophyletic or polyphletic in origin or whether they have descended fron-i 

 the algae or from the protozoa. The algal theory appears to have been advocatec 

 by A. Braun in 1847, and \vas accepted by Cohn (1854), Pringsheim (1858)| 

 and Sachs (1874). De Bary in 1881 objected to the method of intercalating 

 the fungi among the algae saying it led to an orderly arrangement of species^ 

 but not to a natural system. The suggestion that the fungi arose from the 

 protozoa is credited to Cornu (1872), and was developed by Gobi (1885) 

 and Dangeard (1886). Atkinson (1907) was in favor of deriving the lower 

 fungi from ancestral unicellular organisms, but was uncertain whether theyj 

 were colorless or chlorophyll bearing. He was. however, certain that their 

 origin was monophyletic. The algal origin of fungi was supported by Stras-j 

 burger and C. E. Bessey. Gauman (1925) presented the view that all true 

 fungi were derived from the green algae in monophyletic line : he believes the^ 

 lower Chytridiales (his class Archimycetes ) along with the Myxomycetes may 

 have arisen from the colorless Flagellatae. He does not regard either of these 

 groups as fungi. ]\Iartin (Bot. Gaz. 93: 421-435. 1932) has "suggested that the 

 fungi be regarded as a phvlum which has not definitely developed into either 

 plants or animals, but may be grouped with the former as a matter of con- 

 venience, and in accordance with custom." He rejects the assumption that 

 all living organisms are descended from a single primitive cell and points 

 out that the assumption that life may have originated more than once and 

 in different forms is more in accord with what we know of living organisms. 



Clements and Shear (Genera of Fungi, 1931) enunciate a basic prin- 

 ciple : "that the fungi do not constitute a natural group, and that all the 

 phvletic lines lead sooner or later to holophytic origins." It should be noted 

 that although they say they are not dealing with a natural group yet they claim 

 to have approximated a natural system in several respects in their book. They 

 believe that there is but one natural s}-stem and they maintain that any 

 approach to it must l^e the result of the work of many minds. After their 

 admonition that it is more or less inexact, even though convenient, to con- 

 nect the name of an individual to any particular arrangement, one wonders 

 whether he should not tear up his manuscript and begin anew. Clements and 

 Shear do not agree that cytology can be the final arbiter on questions of origin 

 and relationship among the fungi. They make a plea for experimentation "on 

 the largest and broadest scale possible, in both held and laboratory." 



This review which is concerned with the taxonomy of the fungi must pro- 

 vide reference to the specialists who publish papers or monographs on certain 

 groups. Sometimes such authors are called experts. I like the way one writer 

 who says he is no expert disposes of this matter. He says, ''The standard 

 taxonomic revision is the Avork of an expert in the group concerned ; it cites 



