pilation of names of the same meaning, synonyms and superfluous 
empty words.” 
If Nature had spent its millions of years in experimenting, it 
probably could not have produced as many different species of fungi 
as have been scribbled together by mankind in one century. In the 
14 volumes of Saccardo’s Svlloge Fungorum, 47304 species are de¬ 
scribed ; the next forthcoming volume will probably contain 5200 
additional species, and thus, about 52 thousand species will be made 
known. It is probable that upon thorough revision, many can be 
eliminated, although it can not be denied that there are also some new 
good species, not heretofore described.” 
“Not only species but whole genera should be thrown overboard, 
the names of fungi should be thoroughly revised if we are to consider 
mycology a pure science.” 
“Some of the American Mycologists probably thought every 
fungus found in their own country to be different from the European 
species, thus they often described as new, whole batches of such 
species, without taking the European literature (*) into account, al¬ 
though already known from Europe. They did not notice that 
some of the fungi are cosmopolitan in their nature. Especially Gastro- 
mycetes, mainly those among the dust-bearing, are ubiquous because 
the chief condition of their existence depends, not on the climate, but 
on the soil. A cosmopolitan fungus preferring sand, grows as well in 
the sand of the Hungarian lowlands as in tropical Africa or in the 
sand of the temperate Siberian climate.” 
“Thus, Mycenastrium Corium (Desv.) grows in the prairies (**) 
of Europe, Asia. Africa, America, Australia, mostly in sandy soil ; 
but this fungus has been described under a different name according 
to each location. It figures in Saccardo’sSylloge Fungorum under | 2 
different names, each one to represent an individually good species.” 
“Secotium agaricoides (Czern.) is also a cosmopolitan fungus, 
growing in all parts of the earth. This fungus in Saccardo’s Sylloge 
has 8 names, purporting to represent 8 different fungi, although these 
8 names are those of one and the same fungus.” 
“No doubt it is more convenient, less troublesome, and brings 
(*) This statement is very much in the nature of a joke. It is not in the bounds of possi¬ 
bility for the most conscientious worker to reach satisfactory conclusion from the “literature” of 
fungi. The method that Hollos pursues of examination of specimens is the only method produc¬ 
ing any kind of stable results. But it is not possible for any one person to cover the whole field. 
Hollos has only done it in part, in the Museum at Berlin, if he had gone on to Kew he would have 
learned much more and probably unlearned some of the conclusions he reached at Berlin. The 
same applies to Paris, to Geneva, to Eund, to Philadelphia, to New York, in fact to every place 
where a collection of these old specimens i- stored, criticise American botanists because they 
fail to recognize their plants from the “literature” of Europe is out of the question. While 
American botanists have done their share of this kind of work it must not be forgotten that 
European botanists have done more than their share. American mycology would be in much 
better position if Berkeley’s work with American plants could be wiped off the slate. While as 
to Montagne’s, they are nothing but a set of puzzles that never will be solved. 
We hold that “new species” should not be described until specimens have been submitted 
for an opinion to some person familiar with the plants of Europe and there are to-day two men 
in Europe, Bresadola in Tirol and Patouillard in Paris whose experience entitles them to be 
ranked as experts. 
But even after they have passed on a plant there is no absolute guarantee that the plant will 
not turn up under another name in some old museum or be found imperfectly described or 
crudely figured in some old literature. 
(**) “Hutweiden”—literally Agaric fields. The German word “Hut” hat is commonly applied 
to a pileus.—(Translator.) 
95 
