44 
FOURTEENTH REPORT. 
we cannot over-estimate the advantages of such co-operation. None 
of the institutions interested in the work have the means of carrying 
it on extensively, but by uniting much can be accomplished, better re- 
sults obtained, and needless duplication of work avoided. 
] append a map showing the counties in which detailed biological sur- 
veys have been carried on, either by the survey or the museum. It 
should be explained that in no case have the investigations covered an 
entire county or included more than a few groups. 
A ‘‘CLEARING HOUSE’ 
FOR REPORTS 
TION. 
ON FUNGUS DISTRIBU 
BY ERNST A. BESSEY. 
(Abstract.) 
Many fungi are picked up by botanists and examined, only to be laid 
aside when they are determined to be species already described or when 
the special purpose for which they were collected is accomplished. In 
the vast majority of such cases no published record is made of the 
occurrence of these fungi. Thus it happens that the exsiccati and the 
large herbaria throughout the country very often are very deficient as 
regards completeness even for some of the commoner species. The poor 
monographer who lias to rely upon published reports and specimens pre- 
served in the various herbaria is not to be blamed when he omits from 
this country species that are quite common but which have not had the 
luck to have been collected for distribution or to have appeared in state 
or local lists. 
It is suggested that a “clearing house" for reports of the occurrence 
of fungi he established, in connection with some mycological journal. 
To this place would be reported all such finds of fungi together with 
records of place where the specimens are preserved. These lists should 
be published monthly giving name of fungus, name of persons collect- 
ing and determining the species, date, locality, substratum and number 
under which the specimen is filed in some herbarium, preferably some 
large, easily accessible one. Thus, even if the determination should 
prove incorrect, it would be possible for a student of the group to have 
access to the specimen and determine the point before publishing the 
name in a monograph. 
A name should not be allowed to appear more than once or twice 
from a region (or state) unless on new hosts. Thus there would be re- 
quisite the services of an editor for the list who would also make all 
names conform to some recognized nomenclatorial system. Perhaps no 
names should be published except those lacking in regional or state 
lists for the locality where the reported fungus was found. Other- 
wise the editor would be swamped with reports of very common species 
from states that have not yet published lists. 
