104 
IOWA ACADEMY OP SCIENCES. 
viously recognized species but adopts as his guide in nomen- 
clature the rule “laid down by A. L. Condolle in 1888, * * 
that the first authentic specific name published under the genus 
in which the species now stands shall take precedence of all 
others;” a rule which seems to me as unfair in its proposals as 
absurd in the results to which it leads. Under the operation of 
this rule Rostafinski’s synonyms is made to overturn his own 
nomenclature, and this in a multitude of instances. 
Now, I have no disposition to defend RostafinskL As before 
said, his nomenclature, whatever apology we may offer, admits 
in many cases of small defense; but in fact Rostafinski needs no 
defender. If any man chooses some other prior name for a 
species listed by the illustrious Pole, upon him devolves the 
burden of proof; he must show that the form described by Ros- 
tafinski is that referred to by the earlier author. No one who 
has studied these forms and has attempted their specific identi- 
fication, even with the most carefully drawn descriptions before 
him, but will appreciate the futility of an effort to apply the 
old and brief descriptions. Even so-called authentic specimens 
are hard to authenticate. Slime-moulds are perishable things 
and labels are liable to become mixed, even in the best her- 
baria as we all know. To aver of a species described by Ros- 
tafinski that it is the same as that sketched in a line or two 
by Persoon or Link, is an undertaking too bold for me. Even 
where the species described is figured, the figure is often per- 
fectly valueless for complete assurance. Take Schrader for 
instance, whose copper plates of a hundred years ago are 
among the best pre-Rostafinskian illustrations in the group we 
study, and even these are disappointing in the extreme. The 
figure of Dictijdium umbilicaium S. is portrayed in life-like 
fashion but is unluckily an only species. The species of Gri- 
braria to which Schrader gave name, are some of them fairly 
shown but not in the details by which the species may be every- 
where distinguished, G. macrocarpa the artist missed entirely 
and fell instead into a bit of arabesque which has nowhere the 
slightest counterpart in nature. Schrader’s descriptions are 
very much better than those of most writers of his day, and 
yet they fail to distinguish as we now discriminate since Rosta- 
finski taught us how. The fact is that when Rostafinski gives 
credit to his predecessors it is for the most part purely a work 
of courtesy and grace. There is nothing in the work itself to 
command such consideration. The man who in his search for 
