KERN: TAXONOMY OF THE FUNGI 11 



the disposition to accept International rules was improved thereafter. Not long 

 ago I was criticized by a colleague for such a conservative statement. He wanted 

 me to say that these rules are, and have been for some time, actually in effect. 

 Again it may be time which settles many problems. At any rate, it was in 

 1940 that the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture 

 formally approved a recommendation of the Department Committee on Plant 

 Names "to put the Department, botanically speaking, under the International 

 Rules of Nomenclature." To me it is interesting that it took ten years for 

 this department to come to an action making these rules official for "publica- 

 tions, reports, and correspondence involving scientific plant names." Perhaps 

 one might be pardoned for calling attention to the anomaly of an agency finally 

 finding it expedient to subscribe to the acts of an organization which it failed 

 officially to aid. It is also interesting to note that two years after the official 

 order they are still going through an adjustment period in getting nomen- 

 clatorial usage realigned according to International rules. When it becomes 

 necessary to drop the name Ustilago hordei which, according to old usage, 

 has been applied to the covered smut of barley and to take up the same name, 

 according to International Rules, for loose smut of the same host it is little 

 wonder that the workers talk about confusion. Personally, I believe that the 

 confusion will be only temporary and that the advantage of getting on a 

 world-usage basis will more than outweigh the disadvantages. It is desirable 

 to avoid changes in names as far as possible, but changes cannot be entirely 

 avoided if the rules of nomenclature are to put in order the old names as 

 well as to be a guide for the creation of new names. There are those who 

 believe that the procedure embodied in the present system of nomenclature 

 leaves too much to expediency and personal preference and do not rest 

 sufficiently upon foundamental principles. It has been pointed out that "there 

 is no guarantee — if, indeed, there is any hope — 'that the system which may be 

 adopted today will be accepted by the next generation." No, there is no 

 guarantee that anything man devises will continue — not even democracy. We 

 must not^ however, look upon this or any other problem in such a futile 

 manner. There are difficulties, to be sure, but they are not insurmountable. 

 We are told in the Torrey Botanical Club Announcement and Field Schedule 

 for 1942, "It is understood that there will be no mutilation of species at this 

 session." That being the case, this seems to be the proper place to bring this 

 discussion to an end. 



The Pennsylvania State College 

 State College, Pennsylvania 



