90 THE JOURNAL OF BOTANY 



SphcErella was resuscitated by algologists under the rules of 

 priority, it became necessary to devise another one for the genus 

 of Pyrenomycetes, and this was done in 1884 by Johanson, who 

 by a happy thought fixed upon the word Mycosphcerella. 



So far, all was plain sailing. But, in 1891, Saccardo (who 

 considered that Ilcematococcus was the correct nomenclature for 

 the algal genus, and consequently Spharella for that of the fungi) 

 inadvisedly wrested the word Mycosphcerella from its original 

 application, and so introduced a confusion which is gradually 

 growing worse. It happens that, among the species included 

 under the Friesian idea of Sphcsrella, there are some whose asci 

 contain eight sporidia, and one at least containing sixteen. It 

 occurred to Saccardo that, since Mycosphcerella was not required, 

 in his opinion, for the whole group, it might as well be used, 

 ''pro f)iinori parte,'' for that w^hich had sixteen spores, and he 

 published it with this restriction in his Sylloge Fungorum, vol. ix. 

 p. 659. In this he has been followed by Massee [Diseases of 

 Cultivated Plants, p. 215),''' but not by Engler and Prantl (Pflan- 

 zenfam. 1897, i. 1, p. 423). It is obvious that the solution of the 

 difficulty lies with the algologists. Until they have decided 

 which name to use, the mycologist can only wait. Let us then 

 examine the question from their point of view. 



This has already been done by Wille (1903), who arrived at the 

 conclusion that the name Sphcerella should be suppressed among 

 the algae, and by Hazen (1899) who arrived at the opposite con- 

 clusion. The matter was also considered, from the mycological 

 point of view, by Berlese and de Toni (1887), and they arrived at 

 the same conclusion as Wille. But it seems that these latter 

 authors have, unconsciously, misrepresented the exact state of 

 things. The genus Sphcerella, as founded by Sommerfelt (1824) 

 contained three species, the synonymy of which, according to 

 Wille and Hazen, is as follows : — 



1. S. NIVALIS = Chlamydomonas nivalis Wille (1903). 



2. S. Wrangelii^ Volvox lacustris Girod (1802). 



= Hcematococcus pluvialis Flotow (1844). 

 ^= Sphcerella lacustris Wittrock (1888). 



3. S. BOTRYOIDES = Palmella botryoides Kiitzing. 



The genus Hcematococcus as founded by Agardh (1828) con- 

 tained also three species : — 



1. H. NoLTii = Euglena sanguinea Ehrb. 



2. H. Grevillii = Sphcerella lacustris Wittr. 



8. H. sanguineus = Gloeocapsa sanguinea Kiitz. 



It will be noticed that the second species in each genus is the 

 same. Of the correctness of the identifications there is, accord- 

 ing to the algologists mentioned, not the slightest doubt, and 

 therefore, however curt the original diagnoses may have been, 



* An instance of the confusion referred to above is seen in this work, where 

 the author, after having defined the genus Mycosphcerella in Saccardo's restricted 

 sense, proceeds to describe two species under that head, each with only eight 

 spores. 



