When I went to Kew I took the matter up with Prof. Massee 
and told him there was ‘ ‘ something wrong ’ ’ with the spores of this 
plant. He made a microscopic mount and on the first slide he found a 
spore in situ , articulated on to a thread of the capillitium. This proved their 
nature without a question I have since several times tried to make 
another mount but never succeeded, as the spores break off so easily, 
it is difficult to prepare a slide without breaking them off. 
Catastoma juglandaeformis is know only from South Africa* 
and but two collections, one now at Kew, the other, locality unknown, 
at Berlin. We judge from the “ picture” of Bovista hungarica re¬ 
cently described, that its spores are of the same nature. 
300—THE LOGIC OF NAME JUGGLERS. 
Dr. Hollos writes by the column on the “rights of priority” 
when he think he sees an opportunity to juggle up a new combination 
and add the word “Hollos” to it. Secotium acuminatum has been 
generally known under that name for many years and Dr. Hollos so 
published it several times and his specimens of the plant so labeled are 
found in Berlin to-day. It is the only name he ever knew for it before 
he began to look up dates of the synonym in Saccardo. Then he 
reached the conclusion that he could do a little juggling, and he got a 
little advertisement by calling it “ Secotium agaricoides (Czern.) 
Hollos”. 
But he takes the strange stand, for one who uses “ priority ” as 
his chief excuse to juggle names, that Secotium erythrocephalum, 
which he claims is the same plant and an earlier name, cannot be used 
because it was based on young specimens of the plant. There is logic! 
Any kind of an old vague picture serves him as an excuse to change 
names, if he can write “Hollos” after the “new combination” but 
he holds that he must not use Tulasne’s earlier name, because Tulasne 
had young specimens. So he conjures up a subsequent name, and de¬ 
vises a new combination, to which the word “ Hollos” can be added. 
The editor of the “ Annales Mycologici ” mildly take the doctor to 
task for it because he takes Hollos’ synonym as true and the editor 
knows that 1844 is an earlier date than 1845. The whole subject is a 
farce, especially in view of the fact that when Dr. Hollos states that 
Secotium erythrocephalum is a young form of the European species he 
is only guessing. He never saw the New Zealand plant. It has little 
more resemblance to the European and not a great deal more relation¬ 
ship than an elephant has to a rhinoceros. Why spoil good white 
paper and waste printer’s ink discussing the proper plant name on such 
statements as these? 
* The plant called Diseisceda Hollosiana (Hedw. 02-62) which is exactly the same plant, to 
the most minute detail, was supposed to come from Mexico but that is probably an error, as we 
shall explain in detail when we come to consider the genus Catastoma. 
200 
