work that Morgan did, for the crude work done with this plant by 
Schweinitz and Czerniaiev. Nor is anything gained by it for we have 
no assurance that Schweinitz was the first to pick lip this plant and 
give it a name. The musty old herbariums of the world may have the 
plant stored away under a dozen names for all anyone knows. 
We will now reproduce a translation (by Sigmund Waldbott, a 
competent German scholar) of Dr. Hollos’ introductory remarks and 
will take the liberty of making a few comments by way of foot-notes. 
INTRODUCTORY BY DR. HOLLOS. 
“The shape, size and color of one and the same species of fungus 
are subject to considerable variation, a fact which has misled many my¬ 
cologists and caused them to describe already known species as new. 
Accordingly, many superfluous names of fungi must be eliminated 
after establishing their identity. Hence our science, suffering surfeit 
with bad species introduced by error, ignorance or vanity, requires 
thorough purification. ’ ’ 
“For the present I wish to speak principally only of such 
Gastromycetes as have come into my hands for many years in different 
form, size and color, which enabled me to give them a thorough study. 
Thus I discovered that man}^ mycologists have been led into error on 
account of variableness of specimens which by no means should be 
taken as characterizing differences in species, and I observed that one 
and the same species has been described under many names, each one 
as a distinct and good species.’’ 
“To give a comparison, I encountered such cases that impressed 
me in the same manner as if one were to describe the unripe, the 
green, the worm-eaten, the fallen, the withered, the yellowish or red¬ 
dish. the hard or soft, the long or short-stemmed, or the stunted fruit 
of one and the same pear tree each under a different name as different 
species of pears.” 
“Would it not be ridiculous for a person to assert that a baby 
and an old man, the straight-haired or the woolly-haired, or the bald- 
headed, the lean or the fat, each one constitute a different species of 
man ?’ ’ 
‘ ‘ Faith in Science is liable to be shaken when it becomes evident 
how many species already known in scientific works have been de¬ 
scribed under new names as new species, and how many wrongly de¬ 
termined are contained in exsiccatae and museums.” 
From the following collected synonyms it is plain how care¬ 
ful and cautious we must be in establishing new species. New species 
should never be described without referring to specimens in different 
states of development, without rich literature and without good ma¬ 
terial for comparison Describing a known species as a new one aside 
from being superfluous, not only renders the survey difficult, but it also 
destroys confidence in science, and the author by such procedure 
acquires only temporary and doubtful glory. Thanks to the species¬ 
manufacturing mania of his predecessors, the true investigator is com¬ 
pelled to waste the greater part of his energy and time with the com- 
94 
