SACCARDO’S “ SYLLOGE.” 
67 
more intimate (and more constant), are studied and unveiled : 
precisely as, in the natural method in phanerogamy, great attention 
is paid to the intimate characteristics of the cotyledons, the 
albumen, the parts of the fruits and flowers, &c., &c. And it is 
worthy of notice that in phanerogamy you have at your disposal 
many distinctive characteristics which are entirely wanting in the 
groups of Pyrenomycetse. I regret that I cannot make use of my 
own language with you, so as to be able to express my thoughts 
better. * 
“ If I have not arranged the Perisporiacei carpologically,* it is 
merely because I did not wish to upset matters with which I was 
not sufficiently acquainted ; moreover, the keys of the Perisporiacei 
are arranged carpologically, as you might have pointed out in your 
critique. 
“ As regards your special observations, I value them very much for 
the addenda et emendata to be published at the end of Yol. n. Only 
you might have added that I am not the author of the genera 
Erysiphella and Ascotricha , and that several of the identifications 
of the species were suspected by me, e.g ., Dimerosporium and 
Capnodium mangiferum , Dimerosporium and Asterina Macowani , 
&c. As regards the genus Sporormia, how can you for instance 
join Sp. lageniformis with a long ostiole to astomous Perisporium ? 
Have you no confidence in your superficial system ? I will end 
here. 
“I should be very much obliged if you would translate this letter 
into English, and publish it in the next number of ‘Grevillea.’ 
“ Yours, &c., 
“P. A. SACCARDO.” 
REJOINDER. 
Being satisfied that the only certain reward of controversy is 
waste of time and vexation of spirit, it is not my intention to 
prolong the present one. The above letter in no way alters my 
opinion, and I have nothing to retract. That I have protested 
against an u artificial system” is sufficient, and I have done so 
from a conviction that it is wrong in principle and retrogressive. 
It would have been discreditable to me, holding such views, if I 
had not been “ determined to oppose it.” That the proposed 
method is an artificial one, its author does not deny, but seeks to 
cover his retreat by an allusion to Tournefort, as a rhetorical 
flourish, although it has no analogy to the point in question. I 
do not consider it so criminal in Fries that he distinguished groups 
and genera by the naked eye, as some appear to do. The most 
* I use this term in the sense of MM. de Notaris, Tulasne, &c. (Asci 
paraphyces, sporidia, and not only sporidia). 
