NOMENCLATURE OF FUNGI. 
73 
connection existed between them, different as they are. In 1865 
it was proven beyond all doubt by deBary that these three fungous 
forms, that had received independent names, and for three quar¬ 
ters of a century been accepted as members of diverse genera 
were truly one organism in its three stages of development, ex¬ 
hibiting a series of transformations the like of which is only 
known among insects, such as the butterfly, which makes a cycle 
of pupa, caterpillar, and winged imago. The proof consisted in 
sowing one kind of spore and securing a crop of one of the 
other kinds, from which in turn the third was obtained. 
It is a curious commentary upon the progress of systematic 
botany as applied to this class of plants, that nearly four decades 
have passed since deBary’s demonstration without an agreement 
being reached regarding the correct name of the fungus. It is 
very generally called Puccinia graminis, and the three forms are 
designated as aecidium, uredo- and teleutospore stages. Some bot¬ 
anists, however, believe that the laws q! botanical nomenclature as 
set forth in the Paris code, or the later modifications of the same, 
which are now recognized as more or less completely binding 
upon students of the higher plants, should also apply to the 
fungi, and to those with diverse fruit-forms as well as to* those 
having a single fruit-form. This would require that the oldest 
specific name be used, and the fungus would become Puccinia 
poculiformis, as in fact, the more radical mycologists have for 
some years insisted upon writing it. 
From what I have said it will be seen, I think, that the ques¬ 
tion at issue relates to the choosing of a name from a number of 
synonyms. The question is more important than appears at first 
sight, for it not only means that the solution will remove con¬ 
fusion, but that the concepts on which it is based will be affected, 
with a corresponding reaction upon the development of the 
science. I will first quote Dr. Magnus. “ Although Jacquin had 
named the Aecidium upon Berberis vulgaris as Lycoperdon pocii- 
liforme” he says, giving his words an English form, “ and had 
described it in his Collectanea, and deBary in 1865 had proved 
that the Aecidium on Berberis vulgaris belonged to Puccinia 
graminis Pers., yet it is incorrect, in my opinion, to designate this 
