66 
SACCARDO’S “ SYLLOGE.” 
The following is Professor Saccardo’s defence in reply to our 
observations in the previous number of Grevillea : — 
“ Dear Colleague, — 
“ A few days ago I saw No. 57 of 1 Grevillea,’ and thank 
you very much for the notice of Yol. i. of my * Sylloge.’ 
“As regards your criticism of my system, which you are deter- 
mined to oppose, allow me to state that the fundamental question 
is doubtless this : Are the characteristics of the spores more or less 
essential and constant than the external characteristics (disposition, 
form, size, consistence, &c.) of the perithecia ? Do you think, for 
instance, that a Valsa, &c., will more readily lose the allantoid form 
of its spores, or the disposition of its perithecia? I have never 
seen a Valsa vary essentially in the form of its sporidia ; but I 
have seen many variations in the structure of the perithecia. There 
are some Calosphcerce — with all the characteristics of a Calosphceria 
— which are grouped circularly, and others which have their 
perithecia either circinate or subsolitary. Leptosphceria Doliolum 
has the varieties tecta and denudata , but the sporidia are always 
the same. Anthostoma gastnnum I find completely Valsioid , and 
later Melogrammoid , but the sporidia are always the same, &c. In 
my opinion, therefore, and in that of many other mycologists, the 
characteristics of the spores are more constant than the others. 
This being admitted, I think that in any classification we ought to 
prefer, for the primary division, those characteristics which are the 
most constant, and in our case these are the spores. 
“When I see that Fries, in the primary division of the vast 
genus Agaricus, has preferred the colour of the spores to the 
characteristics of the annulus, volva, hymenophorum, &c., I feel no 
doubt that if he had had at his disposal the characteristics of the 
spores of his vast genus Sphceria, he would have preferred them. 
“ You say that the characteristics of the spores give rise to an 
artificial system. But why do you not consider Jussien’s system, 
in which the primary divisions are fixed by the number of the 
cotyledons , artificial ? Do you say that only children and un- 
cultured or dejicient intellects will count the number, not of the 
septa, but of the cotyledons ? You say that the system vauntingly 
termed carpological is equivalent to the old Linnean system. 
Possibly ! But I think I am much more correct in saying that the 
system of the Pyrenomycetes of Fries and of yourself are equiva- 
lent to that of Tcurnefort (about 1680?), in which plants are 
divided into trees, shrubs, and plants, without taking any account 
of the characteristics, which are much more important, but much 
more difficult to preserve. In fact both Fries and you distinguish 
groups and genera (what genera !) by the naked eye, asTournefort 
did ; by carpologists, on the other hand, characteristics which are 
