Critical Notes on New and Old Genera of Plants. VIII.

Abstract

Chlorophyllum. A rather unusual oversight, such in fact as one would scarcely expect in modern biological nomenclature is the case of the fungus name Chloropphyllum. Rafinesque on occasion had published a name and afterward quite unaware apparently or forgetful of his own previous publication thereof used it a second time for an altoge-Lher different plant.' In volume 9, p. I72 of the North American Flora,2 Murrill founded a new genus of fungi from Guiana on Neurophyllum viride Pat. which he called Chlorophyllurn, and in the same work, volume io, p. 643 there appears another Chlorophylum Mass.4 a plant not only in the same family but also the type from the same country. It is perfectly evident that in a work as well prepared as the North American Flora the two can not be expected to merit survival under the same name. That of Massey seems to possess priority and another designation is demanded for Murrill's Chlorophyllum. Even in mycologv where the nomenclature has not been as exactly and exhaustively systematized by anv means as in the case of the ferns and phanerogams, exemplified by the Index of Christensen and Kew, one could hardly have looked for a mistake like the above mentioned, and in the Flora at that. Such oversights are, however, easily made, and without blame to any extent on the part of either author or editor, so difficuilt a matter is the perfect editing of a work of the scope and pretensions of this Flora. The name Chiorophyllumn is a name especially for a chlorophylless plant, nor even a real leafy one is hardly a good one for either, nor is the use of a name already used in botany as the latin equivalent of the functioning photosynthetic organ of plant food elaboration to be recommended as applicable to systemat-ic entity or genus. To replace the antedated name