HISTORICAL. 
As previously stated, we do not believe in the recent German 
classification of Gastromycetes based on minute anatomical differences 
such as basidia. A natural system drawn from characters found in 
the mature plants has been evolved gradually, can be readily under¬ 
stood, and plants can be identified by anyone with little trouble. There 
is no department of mycology where there is so much confusion as in 
the Gastromycetes, and it is a most puzzling task to try and trace the 
species through the writings of the various authors. While it is ne¬ 
cessary for us to study the history of the plants, we do not attach the 
importance to solving these old time puzzles that we do to the study 
of the plants themselves. Saccardo’s Gastromycetes is probably the 
poorest compilation of all his volumes. Sclerodermas, Mycenastrums 
and Bovistellas; Bovistas, Catastomas and Globarias,* are all jumbled 
indiscriminately together and often the same species appears under 
two or three different names. Absence of illustrations, or crude at¬ 
tempts at it on the part of authors, are responsible for much of this 
trouble. Endeavors on the part of authors, such as Fries and Persoon, 
to classify species that they know nothing of, on these crude illustra¬ 
tions further contributed to the confusion. In our pamphlet we shall 
make no attempt to compile genera or species that we have not in our 
collection or have not seen and studied. Most of our specimens have 
been submitted to Bresadola and Patouillard, in our opinion the best 
authorities in the world. 
In our country there have been three important workers with 
the Gastromycetes, Peck, Trelease and Morgan. Prof. Peck wrote an 
account of the New York species of Lycoperdon which appeared in the 
32nd Report (1879). This is a very plain description of the species 
that he had seen and studied as they grew, and is one of the best ac¬ 
counts that has appeared. Those who live in the Eastern section of 
our country, can take this old monograph and make out most all the 
Eycoperdons that they find. Practically the same paper, to which was 
added a compilation of species described which he had not met, was 
published in the Transactions of the Albany Institute under the title 
of “United States Species of Lycoperdon.” A paper on “The morels 
and puff-balls of Madison (Wise.),” by Prof. Trelease, appeared (1889) 
in Transactions of Wisconsin Academy of Sciences. This article gives 
evidence of great study and research, and the conclusions Prof. Trelease 
reached are mostly maintained at the present day. Unfortunately, the 
paper is illustrated by most miserable figures. 
Prof. Morgan has probably done more work on the Gastromy¬ 
cetes in this country than any other man, wrote four papers on the 
subject that were published in the Journal of the Cincinnati Society of 
Natural History (1889 to 1892). The field was not completely covered 
as the work was not completed. Morgan made a critical study of the 
internal structure, especially the capillitium of “puff-balls,” and estab¬ 
lished several new genera that are universally recognized. 
(*) Using the term for convenience for Lycoperdon without sterile base. 
9 
