Changes in plant names are inevitable if we are to have any 
advance in classification, but changes should be gradual and are de¬ 
manded solely by the progress made in classification. One of the 
greatest evils in modern botany is the class of pure name-jugglers, who 
for the love of seeing their names added to plants dig up all kinds 
of vague excuses to change plant names. These men do not perhaps 
advance a single new thought or idea regarding the relationships or 
classification of plants. They simply dig back into the musty and dim 
records of the past, and unearth some forgotten fact, or more often 
make some supposition or guess, and then proceed to elaborate a lot of 
new combinations to which their own is invariably added. It is not, 
however, the use of personal names in citations to which I object. It 
is the abuse to which this system leads. I firmly believe if it were 
not for this abuse we would be .spared most of the modern name- 
juggling that is bringing our plant names into such a chaotic condition. 
In the puff ball world men juggle plants they never saw from out one 
genus into another wherein they have not the slightest relationship, 
solely it appears to me, for the purpose of making a change. Men 
“describe new species”, and yet it is evident judging from their work 
that at the time they are absolutely innocent of any knowledge of 
the existence of the genus to which their plant actually belongs. If 
a man does not know the genera, how can he be expected to tell 
whether or not his species is new ? 
271—NOTES ON SPECIMENS IN FRIES’ 
HERBARIUM. 
Labeled “Cauloglossum pistillaris”, published by Fries as 
“Cauloglossum elatum”, type from Koenig, India. The specimen is 
a Podaxon with bright olive spores and without trace of the peridium. 
Cauloglossum transversarium. The specimens are from Curtis. 
One is labeled “Arthymenium transversarium, B. & C.” Pries has 
this notation—“Scarcely cogeneric with C. elatum, differing from the 
section by the pileus continuous with the stipe”. As the specimen is 
not cut open Fries evidently did not know the vast internal difference 
between it and “C. elatum”. 
Coilomyces Schweinitzih from Berkeley collection by Schweinitz 
in Surinam and called by Schweinitz “Onygena Lycoperdoides”. The 
specimens are two in fine condition, but as neither is cut open I do not 
know their internal structure. Externally they resemble unopened 
Geaster mirabilis. The genus Coilomyces is said to be a peculiar genus 
hollow at the center. 
“Disciseda compacta’’. Czerniaiev sent Fries abundant speci¬ 
mens of his species. It is Catastoma subterranea. Czerniaiev un¬ 
doubtedly anticipated Morgan in the genus but it was so vaguely 
described that it remained unrecognized for sixty years, until an 
investigator who had learned Morgan’s genus from his specimens 
recognized Czerniaiev’s in the light of Morgan’s work, and used it as 
170 
