I50 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [FEBRUARY 
‘conidia in chains.” The spores are borne in sporangial filaments (see THAXTER, 
Bor. GazETTE 24:1-15. 1897). In Leptomitae there is a confusion of distinc- 
tions. ‘‘Naegeliella” should be Sapromyces (see FritscH, Oesterr. Bot. Zeits. 
43:420. 1893). Araiospora of THAXTER is changed to crc ” whether 
by a aes area error or because of Bs) composition,” we are not told. 
Gonopodya ly placed in the Monoblepharidaceae; 
the former i is sina rerie while the latter is pythiaceous. The genus Dibleph- 
aris does not exist (see THAXTER, Rhodora 5:103. 1903); and so on. Some of 
the good genera omitted from the higher Phycomycetes are Cunninghamella, 
Thamnocephalis, Zygorhynchus, Proabsidia, Lichtheimia, Mycocladus, Tieghem- 
ella, Sapromyces, etc. The author has revised THAXTER’S arrangement of 
the Laboulbeniales, and one of the first things to be noticed is that Stichomyces, 
with simple antheridia, is placed in the group which is characterized by com- 
und antheridia. ; 
“Subfamily Harpochytriae” on p. 11, and “Harpochytrium” as one of the 
genera is probably a slip for Hyphochytriaceae and Hyphochytrium. On p. 
something seems to be omitted after the line “Stroma on a white subicle,” unless 
it indicates a hypothetical group. 
Although the author says that “questions of nomenclature have been left 
largely to one side,” a large number of new names are proposed for genera, in 
many cases as substitute names for already existing valid ones. For example, 
where a generic name is longer than the author thinks it should be, he shortens it; 
Dimerosporopsis is changed to Dimerosporis, Trematosphaeriopsis to Tremato- 
sphaeris, Hyalethyridium to Hyalothyris, Gymnoascus to Gymnascus, Exoascus 
to Exascus, etc. Objection is made also to the use of generic names of * faulty 
composition,” and many names are changed to conform to an adopted standard 
of word-formation; thus, Tremellopsis is changed to Tremellastrum, Coleopuc- 
cinia to Coleoma, Oscarbrefeldia to Ascodes, Podosordaria to Pedisordaria, Aureo- 
basidium to Chrysobasidium, etc., while Tremellodon, for example, is allowed 
to stand. It may be admitted that authors of long generic names should have 
selected shorter ones, and should have used greater care in word-formation, but 
if we recognize CLEMENTS’s principles of nomenclature, we must accept them 
from anyone who chooses to change the spelling of genera or to substitute new 
generic names for any of the present valid ones. It requires very little imagina- 
tion to foresee the result of such a policy. The object in adopting principles of 
botanical nomenclature is to secure as uniform methods in naming plants as 
possible. The name is merely a medium of exchange by which we convey to 
others the concept of the organism with which we are dealing, and a name 
employed in accordance with principles adopted by an international representa- 
tive assembly of botanists is more useful than an invalid name. 
Besides the large number of arbitrary changes in generic names, a large num- 
ber of new generic names are proposed without.any diagnosis other than the few 
differential words used in the key. Some have a better basis, perhaps, than 
others. Two which were examined at random will show on what very insufficient 
