112 
Journal of Mycology 
|Vol. 10 
the facts. Of many examples, two will suffice, i. When we 
change the name Puccinia Caricis Reb. (1804) to P. Urticae 
(Schum.) Lagerh., because the name of the aecidial stage (Ae¬ 
cidium Urticae Schum., 1803) is earlier, we make two' misstate¬ 
ments, namely, that Schumacher knew and distinguished Puccinia 
Caricis , which he did not, and that this Puccinia grows upon 
Uric a , which nourishes no Puccinia. 2. When we change the 
name of the extremely common Puccinia graminis Pers. (1797) 
to Puccinia poculiformis (Jacq.) Wetts., because the name of 
the aecidium is prior ( Lycoperdon poculiforme Jacq., 1783), 
we likewise make two false statements, namely, that Jacquin 
knew and distinguished Puccinia graminis, and that this assumes 
the form of a cup, a form which it does not exhibit. 
XI. 
As to the heteroecious species of Uredinaceae recently dis¬ 
tinguished, the names proposed by Klebahn, Arthur, and others, 
based upon the two hosts, merit approval; with this condition, 
however, that the specific name be composed of not more than 
two words, and that the host of the teleutospore stage hold first 
place in the name, the host of the aecidium second place. 
Thus: Puccinia Pseudocyperi-Ribesii, not P. Ribesii-Pseu- 
dosyperi Kleb. Melampsora populina-Allii, not M. Allii-populina 
Kleb. 
XII. 
What has been said of the nomenclature of Uredinaceae is 
valid for Ascomycetae. 
Thus, for example, it is incorrect to write Glomereila rufo- 
maculans (Berk.) Schrenk & Spaulding, because the conidial 
stage is Septoria ( Gloeosporium ) rufo-maculans Berk. (1854), 
as Berkeley neither saw nor described the ascus-bearing stage. 
It is, however, correct to write Glomereila fructigena (Clinton) 
Sacc., for the ascophore is Gnomoniopsis fructigena Clinton 1902. 
XIII. 
Adjectival specific names should agree in gender with the 
name of the genus. 
Hence the names Glomereila cinctum (B. & C.) Spauld. & 
Schr., Glomereila piperatum (E. & Ev.) Spauld. & Schr., Puc¬ 
cinia hibisciatum (Schw.) Kell., thus formed because the imper¬ 
fect stages are of the neuter gender ( Gloeosporium and Aecid¬ 
ium), are to be rejected, as well as for the reason that the authors 
cited within parentheses knew only the imperfect stage, which is 
altogether different from the perfect. The name Nummularia 
nummularium (Bull.) Keissl. Krypt. exsicc. Vindob. no. 516 
(1900) is likewise to be rejected, both on account of tautology 
and the difference in gender. 
