148 Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History. 
istics on which so much reliance is now placed, so that in the 
absence of type specimens it is difficult or impossible to ascer- 
tain to what species their names should be applied. Besides 
this, what we now know to be different forms of “fruit” of 
the same species, were formerly regarded as wholly distinct 
plants belonging to widely separated genera; as each of these 
forms received a name it now becomes necessary to choose one 
from two, three, or even more, to designate the species and re- 
duce the others to synonyms. In the case of the Uredinez there 
are in numerous species four spore-forms, now known as “ te- 
leutospores,” “uredospores,” ‘* ecidiospores,”’ and “‘ spermatia,” 
from which one must be selected as the mature or final ‘‘ fruit,” 
and its name taken for the species as a whole. But as no pro- 
cess of fertilization has been discovered for any of these spore 
productions, there is adifference of opinion among investigators 
as to which ought to be considered this mature or final form. 
Sachs, whose judgment must be highly respected, adopts the 
ecidium stage as that most probably the result of some kind of 
fertilization, while others, equally competent, believe the teleu- 
tospores—as the name indicates—are the final and, if any, 
the fertilized bodies. Sachs, therefore, inclines to call the com- 
mon rust of wheat Avcidium graminis, instead of Puccinia 
graminis, the name used by all authorities up to this time. 
Winter, in his recent revision of Rabenhorst’s Pilze (Fungi), 
attempts to apply rigorously the law of priority of names to 
whatever form of the species the first name was given, and 
most naturalists making a specialty of any other department of 
nature would doubtless commend his endeavor. But there are 
very serious difficulties in the way. While we may accept as 
proved that certain Micidia are genetic forms of known Puc- 
ciniz, in the great number of cases such relation is simply sup- 
posed to exist. Shall we revise our nomenclature on the basis 
of a supposition? In the writings of early mycologists the 
descriptive characteristics following a name are often equally 
applicable to several: species as we now know them. In the 
absence of herbarium types, shall we guess at the plant held in 
hand when the description was drawn up? Not unfrequently 
the oldest name is given to what was deemed a variety, and 
later another name by another or the same author is adopted 
