Journal of Mr oology 
A Periodical Devoted to North American Mycology. Issued bi¬ 
monthly; January , March , May , July , September and November 
Price , $2.00 per Year. To Foreign Subscribers $2.25. Edited and 
Published by ^ ^ KELLERMAN, PH. D. } COLUMBUS , Otf/0. 
NOTES. 
In Mycological Notes, No. 18, C. G. Lloyd comments as 
follows: Dr. Hollos writes by the column when he thinks he 
sees an opportunity to juggle up a new combination. . . . 
But he takes the strange stand, for one who uses “priority” as 
his chief excuse to juggle names, that Secotium erythrocepha- 
lum, which he claims is the same plant and an earlier name, 
cannot be used because it was based on young specimens of the 
plant. There is logic! Any kind of an old vague picture serves 
him as an excuse to change names, if he can write “Hollos” 
after the “new combination,” but he holds that he must not use 
Tulasne’s earlier name, because Tulasne had young specimens. 
So he conjures up a subsequent name, and devises a new com¬ 
bination, to which. . . . 
We owe much to Mr. Lloyd who has never failed to wield 
his pen trenchantly when vagaries and inconsistencies are prac¬ 
ticed in the zeal to establish a stable nomenclature. We do not 
believe that the principle of “priority” can be dethroned, but we 
do commend the view taken above, namely, that it is absurd to 
attempt to overthrow a name because (( based on young specimens!” 
Again, Saccardo says: The proper name of one of the 
Uredinaceae is that applied to the teleutosporic stage, the second¬ 
ary name is that given to one of the earlier stages ( Uredo, Epi- 
tea, Caeoma, Aecidium, Aecidiolum). Moreover, when the 
name of an earlier stage of any species is found to have been 
published before the name of the correlated perfect stage, it is 
not permissable to transfer the name of the imperfect stage to 
the perfect one upon the plea of priority, unless the former is 
found to comprise the perfect stage also, as often happens in 
Uredo , with respect to species of Uromyces, Puccinia, Coleospo- 
rium, etc. _ 
What is the difference? In one case the specimens were 
“young” — hence throw away the name! In the second case 
the specimens were “ imperfect forms” (young?) —but then 
throw away the name! That kind of “priority” precludes sta¬ 
bility in nomenclature. 
Journal of Mycology, Vol. 10, pp. 225-288, Issued Oct. 14, 1904. 
