On [p. 344], in explanation figure 2, last word read hour.
On [p. 346], for name of species read Fuligo rufa Pers., p. 28.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION[1]
The present work has grown out of a monograph entitled Myxomycetes of Eastern Iowa, published by the present author about eight years ago. The original work was intended chiefly for the use of the author's own pupils; but interest in the subject proved much wider than had been supposed, and a rather large edition of that little work was speedily exhausted. At that time literature on the subject in question—literature accessible to English readers—was scant indeed. Cooke's translation of Rostafinski, in so far as concerned the species of Great Britain, was practically all there was to be consulted in English.
In 1892 appeared in London Massee's Monograph of the Myxogastres, and two years later in the same world's centre the trustees of the British Museum brought out Lister's Mycetozoa. Although these two English works both claim revision of the entire group under discussion, the latter paying special attention to American forms, nevertheless there still seems place for a less pretentious volume which for American students shall present succinct descriptions of North American species only. The material basis of the present work consists of collections now in the herbarium of the State University of Iowa. In accumulating the material the author has had the generous assistance of botanists in all parts of the country, from Alaska to Panama, and the geographical distribution is in most cases authenticated by specimens from the localities named. The descriptions, in case of species represented in Europe, are based upon those of European authors; for forms first described in this country, the original descriptions have been consulted. A bibliography follows this preface.
In reference to the omnipresent vexed question of nomenclature, a word is perhaps necessary. De Candolle's rule, "The first authentic specific name published under the genus in which the species now stands," may be true philosophy, but it is certainly an open question how that rule shall be applied. If an author recognized and defined a given species in times past, and, in accordance with views then held, assigned the species to a particular genus, common honesty, it would seem, would require that his work be recognized. To assume that any later writer who may choose to set to familiar genera limits unknown before shall thereby be empowered to write all species so displaced his own, as if, forsooth, now for the first time in the history of science published or described, is not only absolutely and inexcusably misleading, but actually increases by just so much the amount of débris with which the taxonomy of the subject is already cumbered.
In face of a work so painstaking and voluminous as that of Rostafinski, and in view of the almost universal confusion that preceded him, it would seem idle to change for reasons purely technical the nomenclature which the Polish author has established. Especially is this true in the case of organisms so very perishable and fragile as those now in question where comparative revision is apt to result in uncertainty. We had preferred to leave the Rostafinskian, i. e. the heretofore current nomenclature, untouched; but since other writers have preferred to do otherwise, we are compelled to recognize the resultant confusion.
Slime-moulds have long attracted the attention of the student of nature. For nearly two hundred years they find place more or less definite in botanical literature. Micheli, 1729, figures a number of them, some so accurately that the identity of the species is hardly to be questioned. Other early writers are Buxbaum and Dillenius. But the great names before Rostafinski are Schrader, Persoon, and Fries. Schrader's judgment was especially clear. In his Nova Genera, 1797, he recognizes plainly the difference between slime-moulds and everything else that passed by the name of fungus, and proposed that they should be set off in a family by themselves,[2] but he suggested no definite name. Nees (C. G.) also made the same observation in 1817, and proposed the name Ærogastres; but he cites as type of his ærogastres, Eurotium, and includes so many fungi, that it seems unsafe now to approve his nomenclature. Schrader also has left an excellent account of the cribrarias, the basis of all that has since been attempted in that genus.
Persoon, in his Synopsis, 1801, attempts a review of all the fungi known up to that time. His notes and synonymy are invaluable, enabling us to understand the references of many of the earlier authors where these had otherwise been indefinite if not unintelligible. He makes a great many changes in nomenclature, and excuses himself on the ground that he follows, in this particular, illustrious examples! Unfortunately, so do we all!