Page 
Polysaccum 
confusum* . 
. . . . Aus. 13 
erassipes* . 
. . . Aus 13 
pisocarpium 
. . Aus. 12 
tuberosum* 
. . . . Aus 13 
Protoglossum 
luteum . . . 
. . (Aus. 42) 
Queletia 
mirabilis 
. . 135, ( 185) 
Schizostoma 
laceratum. . 
, ... 192 
Scleroderma 
aurantium 
(72)' Aus. 15 
Cepa . . . 
.... Aus. 14 
1 Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum. 
2 Scleroderma verrucosum. 
H Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum. 
4 Secotium rubigenum. 
Page 
Scleroderma 
flavidum.Aus. 14 
Geaster (82) (144), Aus. 14 
tenerum*. (77) 2 
Texense .... Aus. 14 
verrucosum (79) 3 Aus. 15 
Secotium 
acuminatum.138 
coarctatum . . .Aus. 7 
erythrocephalum . . Aus. 6 
macrosporum.139 
melanosporum . . . Aus. 7 
nubigenum.139 4 
Trichaster 
melanocephalus . . . .189 
DESIGNATION OF VARIETIES AND FORMS. 
The longer I work with puff-balls, the more specimens I study, the more 
vague appears to me the distinction between species, varieties and forms. I 
have about arrived at the conclusion that there is in nature (or in the puff-ball 
world at least) no such thing as a species. We find plants of various degrees of 
resemblance or of difference. We sort together those that appeal to us as 
having the same characters and therefore we make what we call a species. We 
sort together others of a different character and call them another species. 
That is seemingly very simple bur, the trouble is that about the time we get the 
characters of these two species fixed, some one sends in a collection of plants, 
intermediate, the members of which partake of the characters of both and the 
two theoretical species are invalidated. 
It seetns to me that our various species are only expressions of various 
degrees of changes that the plants have undergone or are undergoing due to 
varying life conditions. If we had all the plants that now exist or have existed, 
I believe we would surely have a continuous series from the beginning to the 
end. Probably many of these connecting forms have disappeared, but among 
the puff-balls enough remain to lender their definite sorting into distinct 
species at the best, only approximate. The same can be said as to genera, and 
to a greater degree as to varieties and forms. The fact is, no one can define the 
amount of difference necessary to constitute a variety, a species or a genus. No 
system of nomenclature can attempt to give more than an approximate idea of 
the various degrees of resemblance between plants. There should unques¬ 
tionably be associated with each species such characters as observation teaches 
are common to a number of individual plants and then the plant that has these 
characters most strongly marked, most typically represents the species. If the 
points of difference between two lots of individuals are sufficient to be noted and 
described, the plants are entitled to a name, and a binominal name is the 
simplest. It is therefore we believe, the best that can be used. To me a name 
as a variety is cumbersome. For example think of “Lycoperdon pirif'orme var. 
excipuliforme”. Nor can I bring myself to believe that any plant should be 
inflicted with such a name as ‘‘Lycoperdon piriforme excipuliforme” At the 
same time I recognize that plants very closely resembling each other should be 
marked in some way, and Fries’ system of simply starring such names impresses 
me as best. It is the system that has been adopted by me in this index and I 
shall use it in future. 
7 
