NOMENCLATURE OF FUNGI. 
99 
ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF FUNGI HAVING 
MANY FRUIT-FORMS. 
By J. C. Arthur, 
Professor of Botany, Purdue University. 
( Conclusion .) 
This lack of agreement among mycologists is significant of the 
historical form of the concept underlying the application of names, 
which does not dififer materially, as exemplified by conservative 
mycologists of the present time, from that held by mycologists 
of a century or more ago. In pre-Linnaean times names con¬ 
sisted of descriptive phrases; thus Micheli in 1729 placed under 
the newly established genus of Puccinia two species, i. e.: (1) 
Puccinia non ram os a, major, pyramidata, and (2) Puccinia 
ramosa, bifurcata, omnium minima, candissima, pruinam referens. 
Sometimes a name would be formed of only two words; as in 
Schmidel’s work of 1797, written in the pre-Linnaean style, we 
find Puccinia cristata. But this was purely accidental, and not 
intended to be a concession to the binomial method introduced by 
Linnaeus. Schmidel evidently considered the term cristata suffi¬ 
ciently descriptive of the fungus, and that additional terms would 
be superfluous. It was Linnaeus’ great contribution to nomen¬ 
clature that he restricted names to two terms, one generic, the 
other specific. By this change he did not eliminate the descriptive 
idea embodied in the name, but he did superpose the appellative 
idea. When Persoon changed Micheli’s Puccinia non ramosa, 
major pyramidata to Puccinia Juniperi, he intended not only that 
the name should designate a certain kind of fungus, but that it 
should apply to a fungus found upon the juniper, and belonging 
to the group of fungi embraced under the name Puccinia. Let 
it be noted that the generic name in this case is not descriptive. 
The genus Puccinia was named in honor of Puccini, a Florentine 
professor. From the very beginning of binomial usage the de¬ 
scriptive feature of generic names has been wholly incidental, 
but the descriptive feature of specific names has persisted with 
