MARKING TYPES IN THE MYCOLOGICAL 
HERBARIUM 
William A. Murrill 
An article by Swingle on the designation of types appeared in 
Science, June 6, 1913, in which the discussion was confined to 
flowering plants. Dr. Swingle’s statement that a type has no 
duplicate would hardly be appropriate when applied to fungi, 
since several sporophores usually arise from the same mycelium 
and the type collection may include one or more of these sporo- 
phores. For this reason, I would suggest the term extype in- 
stead of clastotype for a part of the type, since a part of the type 
is not necessarily a fragment. The term cotype should be omitted 
altogether, to avoid confusion. The principal terms to be used 
would then be; type collection, type (including lectotype), extype 
(including clastotype) , microtype (suggested for a part of the 
type mounted for microscopic study), and paratype (including 
syntype) . 
Rubber stamps bearing the words “ Type Coll.,” “Type,” “Ex- 
type,” “ Microtype,” and “ Paratype ” may be used in the myco- 
logical herbarium with great advantage. 
It frequently happens that a collector is unable to distinguish 
closely related plants and places two or more species under one 
field number. In such cases, the actual specimens used by the 
publisher of the species would be the type and it would be unsafe 
to designate as such any other portion of this same collection. 
Certain questions will always arise which will be settled differ- 
ently by different persons. For example, if a portion of a collec- 
tion is sent away to a specialist and he makes it the type of a new 
species, the remaining portion may not always receive the same 
designation. In the case of mosses, it is quite necessary that 
the one who publishes the species should see all the material i' 
order to be sure that it is the same thing. This may be true in 
various other groups also. 
New York Botanical Garden. 
108 
