68 
SACCARDo’s “ 8YLL0GE.” — REJOINDER. 
practical method would be to travel, as it w r ere, from the known to 
the unknown, from that which may be distinguished by the naked 
eye, or a pocket lens, gradually upwards to the highest of micro- 
scopical powers, which are most essential to distinguish many of 
the so-called species of modern times, and often fail to reveal 
their differences. I am not prepared to condemn recklessly a 
system which originated half a century ago, because it may not 
have progressed with the perfection of the microscope. However 
imperfect a system may be which regards natural affinities, it is 
preferable, as a principle, to a more elaborate artificial one. No 
one denies that the arrangement adopted by Fries, for instance, 
however sufficient it might have been at the time, is capable of 
considerable improvement, and that it is insufficient in detail to 
meet the wants of the time ; but that proves nothing for another 
system with a different basis. Undoubtedly there was ample field 
for a complete natural arrangement of the Pyrenomycetes, which 
should have taken cognizance of all the improvements in instru- 
ments and observations of half a century. I confess that I have 
opposed the system now in question, because it was not the 
arrangement which increased knowledge of the life history of the 
Pyrenomycetes led one to expect. 
I do not admit that the characteristics of the spores are more 
constant than the external features of the plant, even after 
numerous species have been created out of the variations of the 
spores in one or other of the older species, which would find their 
way back again in a natural system. But I am indisposed to 
travel into details of the system as it is ; suffice it for me that I 
do not accept the fundamental principle. I regret to have to differ 
from the indefatigable author of the “ Sylloge,” and I repeat 
again that his work has earned him the thanks of all mycologists, 
as a record of published species. Some will undoubtedly accept 
it, but some will not. This is in accordance with our knowledge 
of human nature. There never was a system or theory without 
its zealous advocates, but, if this does not meet with the universal 
acceptance which its author seems to have hoped, he will at least 
have the satisfaction of knowing that his labours will greatly 
lighten those of his successor, whoever he may be, who may here- 
after elaborate a more philosophical system. If the present 
arrangement should be as generally accepted, and maintain its 
position as long as that of Fries has done, its author will have 
good reason to congratulate himself upon his success. I only 
hope that the prospective author of the new “ Systema Myco- 
logicum” of 1936 will, in that event, exhibit more veneration for 
Professor Saccardo, and a greater respect for his incessant toil, 
than he has evidenced on behalf of the greatest mycologist that 
Europe has yet produced. 
M. C. Cooke. 
