KERN : TAXONOMY OF THE FUNGI 73 



all the present literature; it is received with respectful interest (never with 

 complete acquiescence) by the author's fellow experts in the same group, 

 and is more or less annoying to others who have to take it into account, as 

 requiring revision of familiar ideas of the limits of groups and the applica- 

 tion of names." The parenthetical phrase is not mine; it is in the original. 



As with other groups of living organisms the fungi have had their 

 devotees. Crowds of them have advanced to the expert stage. It is impossible 

 to name them or to evaluate their contributions. They must be treated 

 generically, as it were. The writer has thought it worth while to try to present 

 some of the problems which such workers encounter. By this is meant not so 

 much the problems inherent in taxonomic studies but rather the wider limita- 

 tions which often operate to check individual progress and to break the con- 

 tinuity of advances for which a groundwork may have been well established. 

 The difficulties which are to be discussed are not necessarily peculiar to sys- 

 tematic mycology. Taxonomic work in general as well as in mycology, has 

 a checkered history. Its advances through the centuries have been piecemeal. 

 Perhaps it will always be thus, and deploring the fact may not only be in 

 vain but may not be fitting. 



It seems likely that we must depend largely upon institutions to furnish 

 the support for taxonomic mycology. Of course there have been numerous 

 individuals who have done their work chiefly or wholly without institutional 

 support. In this country we have only to think of such men as L. D. von 

 Schweinitz, J. B. Ellis, C. E. Fairman, J. J. Davis, and Elam Bartholomew, 

 to realize the debt we owe to individuals, and great credit is due them. 



Even where universities, colleges, or other institutions or governmental 

 agencies are involved it is still true that the ambition, industry, and perseverance 

 of individuals are largely responsible for the advances that have been made. In 

 these later days we have been hearing a good deal about institutional research. 

 So far as taxonomic work with the fungi is concerned we delieve that an 

 analysis would show that research in this line is mostly due to individual 

 prosecution rather than to institutional initiation. It may happen that an 

 institution will make an effort to continue the type of research that has been 

 inaugurated and successfully carried on by one of its staff members and will 

 then refer to the program as an institutional program. More ofteil it happens 

 that a real leader appears and develops successfully a line of work which is 

 supported (more or less) during his years of activity but which is dropped 

 bv the institution afterw-ards. Such instances indicate the correctness of the 

 conclusion that there is often no such thing as an institutional program. There 

 are, of course, exceptions but we feel safe in saying that the exceptions prove 

 the rule rather than make it. We have inserted the parenthetical phrase — 

 more or less — because we are sure that institutional support even when 



