BRITISH UREDINEM AND USTILAGINEM. 
63 
at least, upon indisputable grounds. It was some satisfaction to 
us to discover that our author had not followed some Continental 
authors in this iniquity, but retained still the names sanctioned by 
long usage. There are, nevertheless, one or two instances in this 
work in which “ emendations ” are made to which we take excep- 
tion. 
Puccinia arundinacea , Hedw., is replaced by Puccinia phragmitis, 
on the ground that the uredospores were described previously as 
Uredo phragmitis , Sebum. 
Puccinia truncata , B. & Br., is superseded by Puccinia iridis , 
because the uredospores were described first as tfredo iridis , D.C. 
Puccinia luzulce , Lib., has to give way for a similar reason to 
Puccinia oblongata. 
Puccinia noli-tangeris, Corda, has been made to succumb to 
Puccinia argentata. 
Puccinia anemones , Pers., is abolished in favour of Puccinia 
fusca , because Relham called it JEcidium fuscum. 
Puccinia scorodonice , Link., is superseded by Puccinia annularis , 
because its uredospores were called Uredo annularis by Strauss. 
But, worse than all, Puccinia sparsa , Cke., has been supplanted 
by Puccinia tragopogi , because the JEcidium tragopogi of Persoon 
was first described ; altogether ignoring the fact that for 45 years 
there has been another Puccinia tragopogi described and figured by 
Corda, as P. tragopogonis. 
We contend that all these changes were quite unnecessary, and 
hence unjustifiable ; because “ the essential point in nomenclature 
is to avoid, or to reject the use of forms, or names, that may create 
error or ambiguity, or throw confusion into science. Next in 
importance is the avoidance of any useless introduction of new 
names.” ( Laws of Botanical Nomenclature.') 
“ It is impossible to deny a certain right of custom ; the main- 
tenance of well-known names of forms in frequent use often gives 
clearness or precision, and does away with the necessity of new 
ones.” ( Commentary .) 
“ Nobody is authorized to change a name because it is badly 
chosen or disagreeable, or another is preferable or better known, or 
for any other motive, either contestable or of little import.” ( Laws 
of Botanical Nomenclature.) 
There is another point on which there will doubtless be students, 
as ignorant as ourselves, who would desire to be enlightened. 
At page 150 occurs Puccinia variabilis , Grev., FI., Ed., p. 431, 
with its iEcidiospores = JEcidium Taraxici , Grev., FI., Edin., p. 
444. 
Again, at p. 186 is Puccinia taraxici , Plow., with its synonym, 
Puccinia variabilis , Grev., FI., Edin., p. 431. Does the descrip- 
tion by Greville fit both species, or is there only one ? Our own 
experience is in favour of there being two distinct species of 
Puccinia on leaves of Taraxacum, the teleutospores of which are 
readily distinguishable by the microscope; but surely both were 
