II existe un grand nombre ce noms souvent signales dans les 
ouvrages europeens, mais je lie connais pas les plantes auxquelles on 
les rapporte. C'est le eas des Lycoperdon candidum, montanum, molle 
etc. aussi bien que des treize (chiffre fatidique) tspeces embarrassantes 
que Bonorden a proposees. J’espere que mon prochain sejour dans les 
Musees d’Europe m’eclairera a leur sujet. Je vais faire mon possible 
pour voir les types de Persoon, si ils existent, car de tons les travail- 
leurs de la premiere heure, je crois que Persoon seul a formule son 
opinion d’apres les plantes qu’il avait etudiees. II est tout a fait 
evident que les autres travaux anciens out ete faits d’apres des dessins 
vagues et souvent pen exacts. 
270—NOMENCLATURE. 
While I can candidly say I have no hope of inducing others to 
abandon the present system of personal advertisement in affixing their 
names to the names of plants, I think I have succeeded in drawing at¬ 
tention to the evils of the system. I was gratified to receive a letter 
from one of the foremost mycologists of America, one who has pub¬ 
lished much good work and whose name I do not give as I do not 
wish to draw him into the discussion. It read as follows: “Let me 
say I am coming to believe your idea upon the omission of authors’ 
names in connection with plant names is a desirable thing. The 
present condition of botanical nomenclature, especially in America, is 
unsatisfactory to everybody, even the most enthusiastic advocate of the 
newer procedure. If we could have a general botanical congress for 
the adoption of names in certain standard works, I believe it would be 
better than trying to live by the rules of priority. However heterodox 
this may seem to many, I am persuaded that the result would be bene¬ 
ficial if the agreement could be decidedly and widely made. Success 
to you in your laudable efforts.” 
Personally I do not feel that such agreement is practicable or 
necessary. No congress can legislate for an individual worker. The 
names an author uses should reflect his views of classification. 
The genus Bovistella was discovered and described by an 
American. I learned the boundaries of the genus from his work, and 
I find in the herbaria of Europe a large number of plants, now called 
Lycoperdon and Mycenastrum. belonging to it. Should I locate and 
publish them I would have to call them Bovistellas in keeping with 
my present views as to how the}- should be classified. No congress or 
course could bind me to call them Lycoperdons and Mycenastrums 
simply because they appear under these genera now in all books 
“standard” and otherwise. Nor should I do so, for to my mind they 
are not Lycoperdons and much less are they Mycenastrums. There is 
nothing in the situation, however, to necessitate or merit my name 
being put after the “new combination”. If I had worked with “puff 
balls” before the genus Bovistella was pointed out, perhaps I would 
have overlooked it as did all the European authors, but now that the 
genus has been pointed out it is not particularly to my credit, but on 
the contrary would be strongly to my discredit, if I were not able to 
recognize the misplaced specimens when I find them out of their class. 
169 
