140 
THE CEDAR APPLES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
prejudiced or fools, because their minds are so constituted that 
they cannot believe contrary to evidence, or because they will not 
give up a belief, at command, without satisfactory evidence. It 
matters nothing to us which is the truth ; we hold to that which 
we conscientiously believe to be true until we are convinced of our 
error. If in our garden we sowed oats, and they persistently 
grew up and produced wheat, we do not think that we should be in 
haste to condemn any who dared to doubt our affirmation of such 
an extraordinary phenomenon, even if we had unusually strong 
evidence in our own support. Once, and for all, let us emphatically 
repudiate any insinuation that in these observations we have Dr. 
Farlow in view. We know each other better, and we have only 
taken advantage of this opportunity to justify our scepticism. 
It applies even more thoroughly to the Gymnosporangia and 
Rcsstelice, and something of this Dr. Farlow must himself have felt 
when he wrote the last sentence of his memoir : — If it should be 
shown that several of our Ecestelice are perennial — a fact true with 
regard to most of our Gymnosporangia — and to grow in regions 
remote from species of Juniperus and Cupressus, then one could not 
help feeling that any connection between the two genera was pro- 
bably accidental rather than genetic.” We have all possible re- 
spect and esteem for many of the men who have written their ex- 
periences on this subject. We have every belief in their integrity, 
that they fully believed every word that they have written ; and 
yet, with our own experience of the difficulties — the superlative 
difficulties — in experimental cultures, we are bound to accept the 
possibility of their having been deceived. 
It is by far the most pleasant part of our duty to revert to the 
monograph before us, and to give it our unqualified approbation. 
Would that a few more of the mycologists of the day could be 
induced to forego their species-mongering and inordinate multi- 
plication of synonomy — which is a burden and hindrance, and not 
a benefit — and devote themselves to work like this. Not a single 
species, and only one solitary name of a variety, has Farlow ” at 
the end of it. This is certainly not a consummation which Tvould 
meet with the approval of our Continental friends. Here, per- 
haps, is the valid and substantial reason why the “ sensational ” 
is preferred to the “ true.” Our sympathies are with the latter. 
At page 12 is an observation which we most cordially en- 
dorse. It is to the following effect ; — “ In spite of the fact 
that in certain details G. Ellisii differs from the majority of the 
other species of Gynmo sporangium, it seems to me that Kornicke 
is not warranted in establishing anew genus Hamaspora, founded 
on two species — G. Ellisii, growing on Cupressus thyoides, and 
Fhragmidium longisswium {Thum'), growing on Rubus rigidus at 
the Cape of Good Hope ” — and so on to the end of the paragraph. 
Certainly the two species are not congeneric, and this would be 
evident to anyone examining them free of prejudice, and with any 
regard to natural affinity, as distinguished from artificial analogy. 
