83 
he plea of priority, unless the former is found to comprise the 
saa tase also, as often happens in Uvedo, with respect to 
se i" Urom yes, Puccinia, Coleosporium, &c. When we 
et transfer the name Aecidium to the teleutospore stage, as 
Formerly permitted, we act directly contrary to the facts. Of 
many examples, two will suffice. 1, When we change the name 
Puccinia Caricis Reb. (1804) to P. Urtecae (Schum.) Lagerh., 
because the name of the aecidial stage (Aecedium Urticae 
Schum. 1803) is earlier, we make two misstatements, namely, 
that Schumacher knew and distinguished Puccinia Caricis, 
which he did not, and that this Puccinia grows upon U7tica, 
which nourishes no Puccznza. 2, When we change the name of 
the extremely common Puccenza graminis Pers. (1797) to 
Puccinia poculiforms (Jacq.) Wetts, because the name of the 
aecidium is prior (Lycoperdon poculiforme Jacq. 1783), we like- 
wise make two false statements, namely, that Jacquin knew and. 
distinguished Puccinza graminis, and that this assumes the 
form of a cup, a form which it does not exhibit.” 
Approved. 
XI. “As to the heteroecious species of Uvredinaceae re- 
cently distinguished, the names proposed by Klebahn, Arthur, 
and others, based upon the two hosts, merits approval ; with this 
condition, however, that the specific name be composed of not 
more than two words, and that the host of the teleutospore stage 
hold first place in the name, the host of the aecidium second 
place. Thus: Puccenta Pseudocypert-Ribesti, not P. Ribesii 
Pseudocypert Kleb. Melampsora Populina-Allii; not WM. 
Allit-Populina Kleb. 
Approved. 
XII. “What has been said of the nomenclature of Ure- 
dinaceae is valid for Ascomycetae. Thus, for example, it is in- 
correct to write Glomerella rufo-maculans (Berk.) Schrenk & 
Spaulding, because the conidial stage is Septoria (Gloeos porium) 
rufo-maculans Berk. (1854), as Berkeley neither saw nor de- 
scribed the ascus bearing stage. It is, however, correct to write 
Glomerella fructigena (Clinton) Sacc., for the ascophore is 
Gnomoniopsis fructigena Clinton 1902.” 
Strongly approved because this addition will prevent a strict 
adherence to rule V. involving such an absurdity as placing 
Clenomyces serratus Eidam under Arthroderma Curreyt Berk. 
(1854) and later E. S. Salmon, whereas neither Berkeley or 
Salmon knew it as an Ascomycete but considered it to be a 
Hyphomycete and it was subsequently republished as Arthro- 
derma Curreyt by A. L. S. in the issue of these Transactions 
lor 1903, p, 60. 
