151 
CLASSIFICATION OF THE UREDINES. 
By M. C. Cooke. 
It was not our intention to have made any remarks on the 
communication at page 116, had we not been challenged to give 
our reasons for sanctioning the change of specific names there 
proposed, as if we assumed responsibility. W e beg, therefore, at 
first to observe that we are responsible only for our own communica- 
tions, and it should not be assumed that we accept the views of our 
contributors, because we do not rush forward and challenge them. 
There are one or two points on which we maybe permitted to offer 
an explanation. 
The writer in question has adopted the views of Continental 
authors, as he admits, and is only responsible for his acceptance of 
them — without conditions — in order “to be in harmony.” 
With the barbarous combinations that are employed for the 
subgenera, we do not intend to occupy space. That “ Euromyces ” 
should be a sub-genus of “ Uromyces ” we leave to the consciences 
of Schroter and Co., but classical authorities contend that 
“ Lepturomyces ” and “ Micruromyces ” as representatives of 
Lepto-uromyces and Micro-uromyces is too barbarous, even for 
botanical “ dog-Latin.” 
On the general scheme of classification we have no strictures to 
offer, except such as concern what are called the heteroecismal 
species, and on this point we have already spoken. 
As to the proposed changes in old and well established specific 
names we must protest. 
I. — Because the changes are wholly unnecessary. These names 
have been in use many years, are thoroughly well known, are open 
to no plausible objection, and answer all the purposes of science. 
Only sentimental reasons can be offered for the changes, and not 
practical ones. Everyone is well enough satisfied with Puccinia 
anemones and only theorists — not practical men — desire to change 
it and add another synonym to the list. To the law and to the 
testimony “ Next in importance is the avoidance of any useless 
introduction of new names.” Laws of Botanical Nomenclature. 
Cap. i., Art. 3. 
II. — Because the proposed changes are in opposition to the 
principles of Botanical nomenclature. If it were desired at all to 
go behind an accepted name, that name must clearly belong to the 
same specific plant. Puccinia flosculosorum A. & 8. for instance, 
which is proposed to be substituted for P . compositarum , Schl. 
What is gained but confusion by the change ? There is no such 
species as Puccinia flosculosorum in Alb. & Schw. or any having 
correspondence with the same specific plant. Uredo flosculosorum , 
Alb. & Schw. was an Uredo , with simple ovate spores. No one 
who reads the description would dream of applying it to a Puccinia. 
There was no such species known to Alb. & Schw. as Puccinia 
flosculosorum, and therefore the name cannot be applied to it — as 
