260 
POPULAR SCIENCE REVIEW. 
to the Diatomacece have been heard to intimate their dissatis- 
faction at the tendencies of the age. If we had not found an 
echo to our fears in those who have to deal with flowering 
plants, we had not ventured to attribute the tendency exhibited 
in relation to fungi to the whole area of systematic botany. 
Some mycologists have still sufficient faith in the soundness of 
the principles on which the Friesian genera (for so they may be 
called) were constructed, that they are content to adhere to them 
in practice, and will only accept a very few of the new genera. 
On the other hand, if some recent floras are to be taken as evi- 
dence, certain mycologists seem resolved to adopt as many as 
possible of the new genera, excluding the old ones ; so that two 
concurrent systems may be said to be coming into vogue — 
a double series of names, an unending catalogue of synonyms — 
leaving to a future generation the Herculean labour of discover- 
ing the good grain amongst so great an abundance of chaff. It 
is almost impossible for any person to keep pace with the rapid 
evolution of genera and species, to read and endeavour to com- 
prehend them, much less store them in their memory, to note 
the conflicting interpretations of the same genus, to see two or 
three species accepted by one, rejected by another, or divided by 
a third ; so that one feels constrained to add still another conclu- 
sion — that the tendency of the systematic botany of the day is 
rapidly towards chaos and inextricable confusion. 
The free emendation of the characters of long established 
genera is another fertile source of mischief. The practice is by 
far too common so to alter and emend (?) an old genus as to 
limit considerably the number of species it can include ; and this 
consequently lends excuse for the subsequent proposal of new 
genera to contain the species excluded from the old one by this 
process of manipulation. This leads to confusion as to the 
interpretation which is to be attached to the generic name, 
whether it is to be accepted as proposed by its author, or the 
more limited sense attached thereto by the emendator. 
In a like manner the method of dealing with the parasitic 
Coniomyeetous fungi may be alluded to. This method is prob- 
ably confined absolutely to fungi, and has nothing analogous in 
other branches of botanic science. It has long been suspected — 
we cannot say demonstrated — that some of the species of Pucci - 
nid have relations of a peculiar nature with certain species of 
JEcidium , which are, according to this theory, but another form 
of development. However strong the conviction may be in 
some minds that this is really the case, it is surely premature to 
act as though the relations were satisfactorily proven, and emend 
the nomenclature accordingly. This course, though unsound 
and reprehensible, has been adopted, and advantage has been 
taken, by these radical reformers, of a change in the diagnosis 
