180—DR. HOLLOS ON GASTROMYCETES. 
A most important paper has recently been published in “Ter- 
meszetrajzi Fiizetek’ ’ by Dr. L. Hollos of Hungary. It is in Hungarian 
but fortunately also translated into German, which makes it available 
to the ordinary student. Dr. Hollos has for years made an extensive 
collection and study of Gastromycetes and his conclusions are particu¬ 
larly valuable. There are two classes of botanists, the liberal and the 
radical. The former allows a certain latitude for variation of his spe¬ 
cies, the latter makes a species out of every slight form. As will be 
noted from his introductory remarks and synonyms, Dr. Hollos is ex¬ 
tremely liberal in his views concerning species. 
It seems to us that whoever observes any form of life must be 
impressed w T ith the fact that living organisms are subject to change 
according to environments. They are capable of adapting themselves 
to the conditions under which they are placed, and it is evident that 
such environments cause variation in size, shape, color, etc., that are 
hereditary. That our plants have had a common origin and that the 
study of classification is primarily a study of genealogy is no less 
evident. No rule can be laid down to define a species. It is largely 
a matter of individual opinion, of individual conviction. Two plants 
that impress one person as entirely distinct, may appeal to another 
person as being only forms of the same plant, or vice versa. There can 
be no authority in such matters, we can only defer to the opinion of those 
who have had the largest experience, and I believe the more experience 
one has the more liberal one becomes. 
Dr. Hollos has completely upset many of the customary names 
on the basis of “priority.” If there was ever a delusion it is the idea 
that any permanency can be established on such principles. Beautiful 
in theory, it is a failure in practice. Announced as a means of reach- 
' ing stability in nomenclature, it has caused more confusion and will 
cause more confusion than all other agencies combined. A mono¬ 
grapher proposes a lot of changes and the next man to work over the 
field digs up a lot of older names and changes them all over again. 
Dr. Hollos digs up Disciseda circumscissa to replace Morgan’s Ca- 
tastoma circumscissum. If he had dug a little deeper in the archaeo¬ 
logical rubbish of the past he would have found Disciseda Candida for 
the same plant as Bovista candidum of Schweinitz is Catastoma cir¬ 
cumscissum. Morgan was the first man to illustrate and describe the 
genus so that others knew it. Hollos himself sent out this plant only 
a couple of years ago as “Bovista”. He was enabled to decide that 
it was Disciseda only by what he had learned of the genus from Mor¬ 
gan’s publications and specimens. Schweinitz did not describe the 
plant so that anyone could recognize it and I only knew it to be his 
Bovista candidum from examination of his specimen. If this specimen 
had perished as have so many of his specimens, “Bovista candidum” 
would always be a puzzle. Hollos acknowledges that Czerniaiev did 
not describe the genus so that its species can be recognized. We 
submit that it is unfair, unjust, illogical, to displace the excellent 
93 
