IOWA ACADEMY OP SCIENCES. 
105 
priority ascends beyond Rostafinski, does it therefore at the 
risk of endless confusion and uncertainty in the great majority of 
cases. Some years ago the botanists present at the session of 
the A. A. A. S., concluded that in describing Phenogams one 
should not transcend a particular edition of Line sous; a better 
rule is that which ascends to the earliest accurate description; no 
farther. Accordingly for the great majority of slime -mould 
species I should draw the line at Rostafinski’s work, 1875. 
The exceptions are the few which the rule of accurate 
description would carry behind the Polish publication, where 
Rostafinski discarded a name simply because for some reason 
or other Rostafinski did not like it. As an illustration, take 
the little, not uncommon, species called by Rostafinski — 
Gornuvia circumscissa (Wallr.) R. 
The synonyms, as quoted by Rostafinski, are: 
Lignidium quercinum Pr. 1825. 
TricMa circumscissa Wallroth. 1833. 
Arcyria glomerata Pr. 1849. 
Ophiotheca chrysosperma Currey. 1854. 
TricMa currey i Cronan. 1867. 
The only names accompanied by their authors by descrip- 
tions at all definitive are the last two. The genus Lignidium, 
as defined by Link, certainly referred to forms belonging to the 
Physareoe, if to Myomycetes at all, so that that generic name 
cannot stand, nor can Pries have had our species in mind, since 
his description refers, probably, to some Physarum. TricMa cir- 
cumscissa Wblir. undoubtedly comes nearer to it, but our species 
is not circumscissile, so that it is doubtful whether Wallroth, 
even, had in view the same species. Currey, who comes next 
on the list, by judicious description and carefully drawn figures, 
having, as we think properly, separated from the Trichi as the 
genus OpMotlieca^ ignored all preceding specific names, suppos- 
ing any to have been up to this time affixed, and called the 
species we have before us 0. chrysosperma. Rostafinski now 
recognizes Curre.^’s work, but rejects his generic name on the 
grounds of inapplicability in primary significance to all the 
species included. He therefore coins a new generic name — 
i. e. Gornuvia— d^ndi goes back to Wallroth for specific name, a 
thing that Carrey should have done had Wallroth’s description 
been of sufficient exactness to make sure to Currey’s mind, as it 
seems it did to Rostafinski’s, that Wallroth was actually describ- 
ing the same specific form. The criticism of Rostafinski will. 
