— 99 — 
these genera has made necessary some new combinations in specific names, 
but we are glad to say that these are not many. It may be noted in passing 
that as the author of one of these new combinations, Bacidia akonipsa 
(Tuck,), Dr. Herre has priority in his “ Lichens of the Santa Cruz Peninsula, 
California” (Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. vol. 12, no. 2, pp, 27-269. May 15, 1910). 
The problem of the “type-species” of genera is one which has as yet 
reached no satisfactory solution, and upon which depends much of the 
future of botanical nomenclature. Professor Fink has contributed to the 
problem among the lichens by citing under each genus the first species to be 
described under that generic name. According to some authorities this 
would be the type species. If this rule were to be followed among the 
lichens, where so many of the generic names rest upon a basis of long usage 
only, the resulting changes and confusion would be such as to render the 
nomenclature of lichens a hindrance rather thail an aid. We are glad to 
find that while Professor Fink has indicated what he considered to be the 
type species under each genus, he has wisely left the carrying out of the 
application of the principle to future study, and has left the generic names 
to stand according to their long accepted interpretation. 
In the matter of specific names, he has even been what we may call 
ultra conservative. Where an author of high standing shows that a specific 
name should be replaced by another on the basis of well-founded priority, 
there seems to be no good reason for not accepting the older name. An 
example of this is in the genus Icmadophila, where Wainio has shown that 
the specific name ericetorimi (L.) has priority over aernguiosa (Scop.). 
The use of trinomials for what is referred to as “sub-species” indicates 
clearly the need of more uniformity among lichenologists in the use of the 
terms “sub-species,” “variety,” and “form,” as applied to the subdivisions 
of polymorphic species. Such a uniformity of usage, however, would have to 
rest on a study of these species extensive enough to prove the relative value 
of their components, and such a study has as yet been made in comparatively 
few cases. 
In refreshing contrast to many recent publications in Systematic Botany, 
Professor Fink has found it necessary to name only one new species in this 
publication — Omphalaria mmnesotetisis \ and in all of his preliminary work 
only two new species and three new varieties. New species proposed on 
such a conservative scale are fairly certain to prove valid enough to stand 
future investigations. 
Admirably adapted as the work is for the use of all students, we cannot 
help feeling that it might have been more valuable still if the somewhat 
lengthy descriptions had been condensed into diagnoses giving the essential 
characters and these followed by some comparative notes indicating the 
resemblance and differences between the species under consideration and 
closely related species. Such notes based on Profes'sor’s Fink’s wide experi- 
ence in field and herbarium would have been of the greatest value to all 
students. For an experienced student it is an annoyance as well as.consid- 
