Species not in Fries. 
rufoflavus, Berk. 
Braunii, Kab.=rufofiavus. 
rubriporus, Quel. 
Pfeifferi, Bres.* 
Hartigii, Allescher. 
thelephoroides, Karst,—unknown. 
spongiosus, Pers. 
tenuis, Karst.=spongiosus. 
robustus, Karst.—unknown, 
resinaceus, Boud.=var. of laccatus. 
carnosus, Pat.—imperfectly known, 
hippopus, Willd.—imperfectly known, 
gelsicola, Berl.=australis. 
leucophaeus, Mont.* 
laccatus, Kalchb.* 
fucatus, Quel.=Polyporus gilvus. 
48— NOMENCLATURE. 
Finding that I have a couple of pages of “copy” to 
supply to fill out this pamphlet, I will take the opportunity 
to “fill in” with a few remarks on the subject of nomencla¬ 
ture. I am well aware that my views on the subject are not 
in accord with most botanists and that probably they will 
not be acceptable to the majority of the readers of this leaf¬ 
let. I have noticed several criticisms of my failure to give 
the names of authorities after the names of plants and these 
criticisms are not unexpected. I have only to say concern¬ 
ing the subject that the omissions are made with design. I 
see no more reason why one who describes a plant should 
attach his name to it and cumber the pages of literature lor 
all time with it than should one who discovers a new star, 
a new element, a new chemical compound, a new shade of 
color or a new anything else. It is necessary that the ob¬ 
ject should have a name, but it does not follow that it should 
be entangled for all time to come in print of every descrip¬ 
tion with the name of its namer. 
The personality of the man who chanced to stumble 
over it or who first described it, is neither useful nor neces¬ 
sary. We all appreciate the great, and I believe to a large 
extent unnecessary, useless weight our study carries in the 
form of synonyms, and know that several sets of rules have 
been evolved to govern the naming of plants. The trouble 
is botanists are not agreed on any set of “rules’’ nor in my 
opinion can any be formulated that will remedy the matter, 
23 
