|
Correspondence of Charles Peck and G. W. Clinton March 7, 2011 |
|
The
Correspondence of Charles
Peck (1833-1917) and George
William Clinton (1807 1885) 1876 Vol. 11 (88) [J 176] My Dear Sir, Of Jan. 16 I consider No. 1 Polyporus versicolor
Fr. 2 This I have usually referred to Melanconium
magnum Berk. as a variety with smaller spores than
usual, but I shall be better satisfied to consider it a distinct species, so
let us call it Melanconium intermedium
P. & C. It comes just about midway between M. oblongum
and M. magnum; the spores in the first being about .0008' long, those of the
second averaging .0012' or .0015', while in this they are about .001 long. 9 Corticium incarnatum
Fr. 10 Melogramma quercuum
Fr. probably. It is without fruit. I fail to make out the other numbers. Of the stems of Syringa I find only one
piece that bears the Sphaeropsis Syringae. Half of this I return. There is something else on one other stem which I wish to study
further. It may be something new. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (90) [J 172] My Dear Sir, I inclose a specimen of what I take to be
the Merulius bellus B.
& C. I depend on Sphaeria aculeata Schw.
belongs to C. a Immersae *
* Endocaulae near S. spiculosa
and S. inquilina. * Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received -[ no note; the constellation of asterisks is a mystery to
me, also "a Immersae"] Vol. 11 (92) [J 170] My Dear Sir, I have reduced the number of your doubtful species somewhat, but am
obliged to leave quite a number just where they were before. Some were badly mixed, some were sterile and so must remain doubtful till
they turn up in better condition. In several instances I have been obliged to
give a name to the species, considering them new. I have taken a part of the
specimens in some instances where we needed them. I return the whole bundle
by Express to day. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (93) [J 169 - a [ 20 Ap. 18 is Hypocrea 21 Ap. 18 is Hypocrea x1 Imperfect - too young x2 Puccinia Graminis
Pers. x3 Ascobolus ciliatus
Schm. x4 In poor condition & doubtful. x5 This is undoubtedly the Ascobolus conglomeratus Schw. and
probably only a form of Hysterium rufescens Schw. which Cooke
refers to Angelina rufescens Duby. x6 Penicillium crustaceum
Fr. x7 Oidium fasciculatum
Berk. 8 Imperfect. 9 Spilocaea Pomi
Fr. which Cooke regards as very near to if not a form of Cladosporium
dendriticum. Wallr. These are of Feb. 8, Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no
note. Written by Vol. 11 (99) [J 163] My Dear Sir, Of March 14, No. 1 is undoubtedly Aethalium
vaporarium of the Handbook, but whether this really
ought to be separated from Ae. septicum
I am not sure. Because it grows in stoves [stores?] and is always yellow
scarcely seems a sufficient reason for separating it from the other which
grows in the open air and is only sometimes yellow. If I should disitinguish a species on such characters I should expect
some one to deny its validity very soon. 2 & 3 Oidium fructigenum
Schrad. 4 is uncertain "A" March 15. I find no fungus here. 9 Feb. 13. This will probably turn out to be Peziza
(Dasyscyphae) maculincola
Schw. though it does not fully agree with Schweinitz's description. Cooke places this as a synonym
of Peziza flammea A.
& S. but P. flammea is figured as wholly red,
while this is black at the base and red above according to the descriptions
of P. maculincola. P. cinnabarina
Schw. is also very near this species and the brief
description scarcely affords any satisfactory ground for separation; so you
see how difficult it is to say what name your specimens should bear. A very
slight variation in the characters would adapt it to one of those published
species with neither of which it rigidly agrees now. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received March 17 Vol. 11 (100) [J 162] My Dear Sir, I have not any doubt that Dothidea perisporioides B. & C. in Grevillea
is the same as the one we referred to Sphaeria perisporrioides B. & C., though I have in some
unaccountable way mislaid the fertile specimen you sent me, and so am not
able to say with absolute certainty that the fruit agrees. Could you send me
another bit of the fertile plant. It seems to me
that the generic character "Perithecia
none", as given in the Handbook, ought to be somewhat modified before a
plant with such distinct and manifest perithecia is
admitted into the genus. I notice quite a number of generic changes are made
by Diatrype virescens he reduces to a variety of D. disciformis and Dothidea crystallophora B. & C. he includes under Dothidea Ribesia; and I doubt
very much if Sphaeria Russelii
B. & C. is anything but Sphaeria Collinsii Schw. I am glad his
"Notices" are approaching the end, for I have been greatly
disappointed in them. I have from Cooke a specimen of the Puccinia
on leaves of Polygonum amphibium
and also one on leaf of Polygonum Convolvulus. Both
are referred to Puccinia Polygonorum.
The spores differ slightly, but the external appearance considerably so that
I should not be averse to separating into two species. In P. amphilii the sori are more
confluent and compact and have a more dull black aspect. I have not seen
American specimens on P. Convolvulus, so I am not sure that we have more than
the one species. The one on P. Virginiana seems to
me the same as that on P. amphibium. I will return the box with such of the specimens as I can name in a
day or two. I find a specimen from you ("3 Nov. 1") which I had
erroneously referred to Craterellus caespitosus Pk. It should be Helotium
versiforme Fr. You will also see by Grevillea No. 30 p. 69 that Virgasporium
does not stand and therefore that V. Callae P.
& C. must again be changed, this time to Cercospora
Callae P. & C. [In pencil by Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (102) [J 161 - a the previous penny postcards] My Dear Sir, I believe that what Cooke named for me Hysterium tumidum and what
I, putting too much faith in his determination, have so named for you is
nothing but Phacidium dentatum
Fr. Mar. 26 1 & 2 Not good. 3 Ascophora Mucedo
Tode. 4 Penicillium crustaceum
Fr. 5 Cladosporium Herbarum
Lk. I sent a scrap of 9 Feb. 13 to a friend in Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (108) [J 155] My Dear Sir, I sent for southern specimens of Pinus mitis and Pinus inops. On comparison with these I became fully satisfied
that the Portage pine, as well as those I had previously collected on the catskills and at Sandlake, was Pinus resinosa; also that Dr.
Steven's pine from I wish the real P. mitis and P. inops might yet be found within our southern borders. No. 1 I suspect a Sphaeropsis but am not
fully satisfied. 2 This is the same Peziza Fowler sent
years ago, which seemed to me new and worthy the name P. Fowleri,
but I have been waiting for good specimens to turn up before describing. 3 A Peziza, but it came badly broken to
pieces and is uncertain 4 Sterile 5 Podisoma fuscum
Duby. I attribute the scarcity of fungi to the prevailing low temperature.
It is wet enough but too cold. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (109) [J 154] My Dear Sir, I can get no good of the sendings of May
29th. Of May 30 1 Peziza repanda
Wahl. x2 Urocystis pompholygodes
Schl. 3 Puccinia Hydrophylli
P. & C. n. sp. Can you send more of this. It is
a rough-spored species like P. Menthae,
P. Anemones, etc. 4 The Uredo-form of what I have in my
Manuscript under the name Puccinia orbicula Pk. I find it also on Solidago
leaves. 5 Peziza Warnei
Pk. Mss. 6 Indeterminable 7 Septoria viridetingens
Curtis I return No. 5 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (110) [J 152 - one of the new [1876] [In Peziza Warnei, Peck = [no apparent reply] [In Peck's handwriting:] Of June 3d. 1 Cystopus candidus
Lev. 2 & 3 Aecidium Grossulariae DC. 7 Polyporus obducens
Pers. 8 Glonium stellatum
Muhl. 9 Aedicium Violae
Schum. 10 Exidia granulata
Fr. 12 & 13 Mitrula paludosa
Fr. 16 Sphaerella Sarraceniae
Schw. The others are not good or in an immature condition. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Peck's
handwriting: Thanks for the specimens of Puccinia Hydrophylli Received -[ no note.
Vol. 11 (111) [J 153 - another new [1876] [ [Peck's reply:] Put it near P. acetabulum
in Sec. 1. A. June 8 is without fruit and indeterminable Of June 6th 6 is a Peziza
apparently P. aurantia. 7 Uredo Pyrolae
Strauss fide Dr. Curtis. Cooke thinks it is Trichobasis
Pyrolae Berk. if I remember rightly, but I see no
Trichobasis. 8 Leptostroma linears
Pk. Mss. 11 Septoria Scrophulariae
Pk. Apparently 12 Uredo form of Puccinia
Saniculae. Others not good. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received -[ no note. Self-addressed by June 10] Vol. 11 (113) [J 149 - new [ Of June 10 3 Dothidea Osmundae
P. & C. n. sp. 4 Aecidium Ranunculacearum 7 Leptostroma vulgare
Fr. 8 Ascobolus ciliatus
Schw. Probably, but the specimens are very poor. 9 Hypoxylon fuscum
Fr. Black dots probably lichenose, but sterile 11 Aecidium crassum Pers. Others not good. The specimens of Aecidium album are received. I was desirous of
knowing if the spores were white in the fresh state as they sometimes fade
when old. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (115) [J 148] My Dear Sir, Thanks for the copy of your Address. You seem to be equally ready
upon all subjects and all seasons. Of June 19 I consider x1 Helminthosporium puccinioides
P. & C. n. sp. and would like more. x2 Oidium monilioides
Lk. x3 Uredo pustulata
Pers. x4 Sphaerella Impatientis
P. & C. n. sp. x5 Peziza assimilis
C. & P. x6 Peziza cyathoidea
(small form) x7 The so called Polyporus Boucheanus Fr. I have tried to get some European
specimens of P. Boucheanus from several sources but
thus far in vain. I suspect our plant is distinct. 8 Puccinia spreta Pk. Of June 27th x1 Stilbum erythrocephalum
Ditm. New to us and more is desirable. x2 Nothing good. x5 This is usualy referred to Melanconium bicolor but recentlly
in reviewing the species I became convinced that this is distinct and put it
in my Manuscript under the name Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (128) [J 133 - a new My Dear Sir, Of Sept 9th No. 1 was named, figured and described two or three years ago by
Rev. J. L. Zabriskie of New Baltimore, who
published it on slips after the manner of Dr. Howe. His specimens occurred on
Quince leaves & he called the fungus Blastesis tridens Zab. Of the Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (130) [J 131] My Dear Sir, The box containing specimens of Sept. 23d came while I was absent
and in consequence some of the contents had become much decayed when I saw
them 1 Too much decayed. x2 Xylaria grandis
Pk. x3 Cantharellus aurantiacus
Fr. 4 Decayed x5 Decayed but probably Agaricus (Armillaria) melleus Vahl. 6 Decayed x7 Exidia recisa
Fr. x8 Imperfect. x9 No fruit, but probably Dothidea Potentillae Fr. x10 Near Ag. metachrous but uncertain. x11 Uncertain x12 Spumaria albus
DC. x13 Microsphaera Viburni
(Schw.) 14 x15 Agaricus (Mycena)
subincarnatus Pk. 16 Too young 17 Trichia turbinata
With. x18 Trichia chrysosperma
DC. x19 Trichia cerina
Ditm. x20 Peziza adusta
C. & P. x21 Apparently the same. Cooke's figure of this in Mycographia is a very poor representation of the fresh
plant. x22 Peziza stercorea
Pers. x23
The peridia are badly broken off but I have no
doubt it is Roestelia cornuta
Tul. 24 Merulius tremellosus
Fr. 25 Aecidium Euphorbiae Pers. I find no No. 14 and two marked 3. The one
which I return is Fistulina hepatica Fr. I fail to make anything of Sept. 11. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received - no note] Vol. 11 (131) [J 130] My Dear Sir, The summer was so dry that I could not make much headway collecting,
but since the fall rains I have been very busy trying to make up for past
deficiencies, hence my delay in reporting on your boxes. I have taken this
forenoon to examine the one of Oct. 7 with the following result. x1 Polyporus sulfureus
Fr. as you suppose x2 Cantharellus aurantiacus
Fr. (large) 3 Agaricus (Pholiota)
adiposus Fr. 4 Agaricus (Pleurotus)
serotinoides Pk. 5 Agaricus (Crepidotus)
fulvotomentosus Pk. 6 Hygrophorus miniatus
Fr. 7 Omitted 8 Helotium aciculare
Fr. x9 Ascobolus conglomeratus
Schw. Cooke I believe refers this to Angelina rufescens Duby. 10 & 11 Uncertain x12 Agaricus (Tricholoma)
multipunctus Pk. 13 & 14 Uncertain ["ask for"] 15 Agaricus (Clitocybe) carnosior Pk. x16 Cantharellus aurantiacus
Fr. 17 Decayed 18 Tremella albida
Huds. x19 Marasmius campanulatus
Pk. 20 21 22 x23 Uncertain 24 Tremella sarcoides
Fr. said to be a form of x25, x26, x27, x28, x29 & x30 Uncertain x31 Odontia fimbriata
Fr. x32 Puccinia graminis
Pers. x33 - x40 Nothing good or uncertain. x41 Pollyporus attenuatus
Pk. x42-45 Uncertain x46 Nectria cnnabarina x47 Cytispora x48 Oidium aureum
Lk. x49 Uncertain [Front page left margin:] Two other boxes remain which I will
examine as soon as I get opportunity. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received - no note] Vol. 11 (132) [J 129 - a Another box received Oct 9th x1 Agaricus (Lepiota)
procerus Scop. x2 Agaricus (Clitocybe)
Poculum Pk. x3 Peziza (Humeria)
omphalodes Bull. x4 Cantharellus aurantiacus
Fr. x5 & x6 Marasmius longipes Pk. x7 Melogramma Bulliardi
Tul. x8 Imperfect. x9 Polyporus nitidus
Fr. x10 & 11 Uncertain 12 This is a fine thing probably new but I am uncertain whether it
(the peridium) is circumscissle
as in Perichaena or whether it is a better Arcyria. The specimens are meagre.
Can you send more and say what bark it is on. If you could spare more also of No. 9 I would like it. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (133) [J 128] My Dear Sir, Of Oct. 9th I conclude that 12 is Perichaena
irregularis B. & C. Berkeley's description is
less than two lines long and he gives no measurements of spores, and says
nothing of colors except of the flocci, which is very perplexing, but so far
as he goes the case is met, so that you probably have the species he intended
to describe. No 13 is rather slim but I think is only Physarum
nutans Pers. Oct. 13 x1 Nectria Peziza
Fr. x2 Two or three things mixed and so little of each that I fear to
jumble things if I attempt to do anything with them. x3 Only speratia present. x4
No spores. I did not preserve the specimens of No. 15, Ag. carnosior as they were so far decomposed, but send
you a specimen of my own collecting. I also return part of 12 also 13. The species of fungi do hold out well. Notwithstanding the bad
season I hope to add a hundred or more species to the Herbarium this year of
my own collecting. Their appearance is sometimes remarkable. In 1869 I found
in North Elba, Essex Co. Boletus Clintonianus.
Since then I do not remember having met with it. A few days ago I found a few
specimens of it at Center, between here and Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (136) [J 124/125 - two sheets] My Dear Sir, Of Oct. 23d. x2 Arcyria incarnata
Pers. x3 x5 Trichia varia
Pers.? x7 Helotium citrinum
Fr. x8 Polyporus nigropurpurascens
Schw. x11 12, x13 Nectria Peziza
Fr. x14 This is too young. It would probably develop into Peziza aurelia. x15 Aegerita candida
Pers. x17 Merulius lacrymans
Fr. x18 Solenia anomala
Pers. x20 Polyporus conchatus
Fr. x28 Polyporus salicis
Fr. x14 Polyporus vaporarius
Fr. The others are not good or uncertain species. Sept. 23d xNo.
26 Uromyces Euphorbiae C.& P. Oct. 20 x1 Agaricus (Pleurotus)
serotinoides Pk. x6
Zygodesmus pannosus B.
& C. Others not good. I report on some of your sendings; and
hope to bring all up in time. Have you specimens of Lycoperdon Wrightii & L. calvescens
fro Mr. C. Wright of [second sheet] Of Oct. 25th x1 Agaricus (Hypholoma)
perplexus Pk. 2 & 9 Immature. 3 Trichia rubiformis
Pers. x4 A Stilbum probably S. pellucidum Schrad. x5 Uncertain. x6 Hypomyces aurantius
Tul. x7 Penicillium crustaceum
Fr. x8 Polyporus species uncertain x10 Uncertain x11 & x12 Hydnum species uncertain. I
find it impossible to identify our resupinate Hydna by x13 Nectria pulicaris
Fr. according to Cooke but the spores by no means agree with the description
he gives in the Handbook. x14 Dactylium roseum
Berk. fide Cooke. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (137) [J 123] My Dear Sir, "Polyporus Salicis"
must have been a slip of the pen for Polyporus salicinus Fr. which is one of the Placodermei
Section Fomentarii. Of Nov. 7 I fail to make out a large proportion. x4 Sphaeria hirsuta
Fr. 10 Trichia rubiformis
Pers. x13 Nectria Peziza
Fr. x14 Dacrymyces deliquescens Duby. x25 & x26 appear to be a poor development of Polyporus
biformis Fr. x35 Agaricus (Pleurotus)
applicatus Batsch. x38 Stereum frustulosum
Fr. x42 Polyporus vulgaris
Fr. x43 Helotium versiforme
Fr. x46 Guepinia spathularia
Fr. x48 I have this in my Manuscripts as Dacrymyces
minor, n. sp. x49 Polyporus nitidus? x50 Polyporus vaporarius
apparently x51, x52 Agaricus (Pleurotus)
sapidus Kalchbr. x53 Polyporus (Placodermei)
albellus Pk. n. sp. x40 Is probably Corticium coeruleum Fr. though I see no whitish margin to it. It is
new to us. Have you more to spare? Nov. 17th I thought this had been sent to you but it was mislaid and I have just
discovered it. [2.?] 31 Nov. 10 looks like Dr. Curtis'
specimen of Corticium Martianum
C. & C. but it differs so much from Berkeley's description of that
species, that I dare not at present refer it to that. What in my last report
I referred to Dermatea acericola
Pk. is probably Dermatea carpinea
Pers. The habitat seems to be Carpinus. [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (138) [J 122] My Dear Sir, "Uromyces Howei
Pk." is the proper designation of the fungus enclosed in your note of
the 17th inst. and of No. 5 Oct. 7. The specimen of Patellaria leptos.. [leptostroma?]
21 Nov. 10 is very poor, barely sufficient for identification and the species
seems to be a rare one. I return the specimen. The omission on my part to send report on Nov. 7 has since been
corrected. I trust the return has reached you ere this. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [no note of receipt] Vol. 11 (139) [J 121] My Dear Sir, Of Nov. 20th the following are namable. x1 Marasmius subvenosus
Pk. x3 Phoma stercoraria
P. & C. n. sp. This is probably a nonascigerous
state of some dung Sphaeria, but in its present
condition it can only be referred to Phoma. x4 Geaster saccatus
Fr. (small) x5 Agaricus (Pleurotus)
striatulus Fr. 6 Physarum nutans
Pers. x8 & x10 These appear to be microscopically much like little
detached tufts of Trichoderma vivide. x17 Cantharellus aurantiacus
Fr. x19 Polyporus cinnabarinus
Fr. x21 Stereum hirsutum
Fr. The small ones are probably the same. 23 Polyporus vaporarius
Fr. x24 Diatrype Duriaei
x26 Hymenochaete rubiginosa
Fr. (Stereum rubiginosum
Fr.) x28 Dacrymyces stillatus
Fr. 33 Xylaria corniformis
Fr. x32 is probably a young state of it. x15 Lycoperdon pyriforme
Schaeff. x7 & x20 are both species of Irpex but
specifically doubtful. 14 Sphaeria Coryli
Batsch. The others are not good. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (141) [J 119] My Dear Sir, Though I do not speak from absolute knowledge it is evident to my
mind that "C", in the article referred to in your postal, stands
for "Cooke". You will observe the same lack of uniformity in his
use of his name and that of Mr. Ellis. It is sometimes given by hm as "C & Ellis", sometimes "C. &
E.". Also in his explanation of
Plate 74 in Grevillea he adds the
"C." to Trichobasis spinulosum,
(he sometimes regards "Trichobasis" as
feminine gender and sometimes as neuter) while in the text he writes it
"Cooke", so that it is safe enough to regard the "C" in
all cases (where he uses it) as meaning "Cooke". As to his controverting the species of others perhaps I ought not
to say anything since I am an interested party, yet I will say that if his
grounds for overthrowing the species of others are no better than they are
for making synonymy of mine he will yet have many
errors to answer for. Some of my species that he reduced to synonyms in his
List in Buffalo Bulletin he has already admitted are good species and others
I am confident will yet be treated in like manner. Indeed so apparently
strained is the effort in the last number of Mycographia
to deprive me of Geoglossum luteum
which he had previously admitted that I am almost forced to believe that I
did not misunderstand the implied threat he made against me some time ago.
But no matter, I shall not quarrel with any one, but I shall maintain that
those species are good which clearly appear so to me, those that do not I
shall drop. I am well satisfied Cooke is wrong in regard to the following: Helvella gracilis Pk. - a good
species and not a variety of H. elastica as he
hints. Leotia lutea (Pk.) Clearly distinct from L. circinans. Geoglossum luteum Pk. no Mitrula
at all and if the same as Mitrula lutescens Berk. that species is badly described. Peziza solenia Pk. not P. Eupatorii Rhytisma lineare Pk. clearly differs from Hypoderma nerviseguium Peziza unicisa Pk. is certainly unlike P. onotica if that is well figured and described. And so to Very truly yours Charles H. Peck P. S. I am of the opinion that the enclosed is Corticium
Martianum P. & C. but still it does not well
agree with the description. It agrees tolerably with Ravenel's
specimen and perhaps it is to be expected that C.H.P. [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (145) [J 115 - a [In Macrosporium sarcinula Berk. I will gladly join with you in the work you propose after my present
Report is completed, which will be at or before the Annual Meeting of the
Regents. Some of the early names especially I have given you may need
changing, so that it will gratify me to have the opportunity of a final
review of the matter before publication. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note. One of [Perhaps this is
a reference to the publication of the fungi of Vol. 11 (153) [J 106] My Dear Sir, You will remember the little black dusty dots on dead willow twigs
which you have sent me several times and which Dr. Curtis used to refer to Coniothecium toruloideum B.
& C. (but which Berkeley does not notice) and which Cooke referred to Torula stilbospora Cd. Not feeling fully satisfied with Cooke's
determination I sent it to Thumen and have just
received his reply, which is as follows; "The fungus is the genuine Trimmatostroma
Salicis Cda. The genus is
near to Torula but sufficiently distinct. I find
the spores a little smaller than in the European forms and also a little
clearer, a sufficient reason to establish a variety for which I propose the
name var. I also learn through him that Puccinia Veratri was first published by Fuckel.
If not too late please change it in the list to Puccinia
Veratri Fckl. instead of
DC. as I mistakenly wrote it. I regret that I am responsible for pronouncing
this new when it really was not. Did the manuscript lists reach you safely. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received - no note] Vol. 11 (156) [J 102/103 - two sheets] My Dear Sir, Your most kind wishes of Merry Christmas and Happy New Year are most
heartily reciprocated. The question of validity of name published in a Report is not a new
one but has been raised previously from time to time by one and another. You
will remember some time ago Cooke wrote me that such a publication did not
secure priority, and yet people do go on and publish in Reports and so far as
I am aware few if any have been hardy enough knowingly to disregard such
publication. I suspect that the article in question was prompted by Cooke and was
intended to include or cover the case of our Cabinet Reports, for I have
recently claimed priority of name in two or three instances in private
correspondence. For instance Cooke and Ellis have recently published a Phaeropsis quercina. I wrote to
Mr. Ellis that I had previously employed that name in one of my Reports. I
also wrote to Thumen recently that I believed Uncinula Ampelopsidis Pk. was
the same as Uncinula subfusca
B. & C. in Grevillea 32 p. 160, and claimed
priority for my name. These cases have probably been brought to the notice of
Cooke and Berkeley and suggested the article. As to Manuscript names in private Herbaria I never thought and never
held that they had any right to respect beyond that of courtesy. The other part of the article is so mixed and indefinite that I am
not sure I understand just kow far "this plain
doctrine" is intended to go. "A privately or exclusively printed
report which is not sold or published" probably means a Report printed
by a private individual at private expense for the exclusive use of himself
and immediate friends. Here the doctrine I think is sound, but I fail to see
how this applies to our Reports. "The species must be published + + in
some work accessible to the public". This upon its face appears all well
enough, but the word "published" being italicised
may have some special meaning. Ordinarily I do not see why publication in a Report is different from
publication in a Journal or Magazine, especially when the Reports are
periodical. Are the Reports accessible to the public? If this can be answered
in the affirmative then I think on their own ground their "bull"
fails to reach them. Certainly Reports of Scientific Institutions, Geological
Surveys and Governmental Explorations so abound in matter of scientific
character that they ought to be classed among the "ordinary channels of scientific
literature". I belive our Reports are not for sale
except occasionally as second hand books. If a few copies could be placed on
sale say with the Naturalists Agency or some prominent firm of Book dealers
it seems to me all question as to accessibility would be removed. Strictly
speaking if a copy were placed in a few of the principal public Libraries
they would be accessible to the public, but the other method seems
preferable. This, according to the claims of the article in question, is the
only vulnerable point in the publication of our Reports. If a man [second sheet] can obtain a Report by applying for it what essential difference
ought it to make whether he obtains it as a gift or by purchase? Yet some men
will quibble and hold that a work is not accessible unless they can purchase
it. The edition for sale may be small, but the first applicants would be
supplied and this would stop all complaint. In the case of the 27th Report
only the Documentary Edition was printed and I had no copies for
distribution. In such a case there seems some good ground for complaint about
imperfect publication. Prof. Hall is absent and will not be back until
Saturday. I will then call his attention to the article, but I am well aware
the subject is not a new one to him. I do not believe the species I have
published in the Reports are going to be ignored or the names disregarded,
but it would be well to guard as far as possible against such causes of
complaint whether they be well grounded or not. I should have long ago and
repeatedly accepted your invitatio to publish
characters of the new species in the Buffalo Bulletin for this very reason,
but I knew Prof. Hall was anxious that our annual Reports should contain as
much new and original matter as possible and has long cherished the idea of
even issuing a Bulletin of new species to obviate the delay in the publicaiton of the Reports. These things will perhaps
receive some attention when you come to Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [top left C. H. Peck, Dec. 28, 1876] Received - no note] |
|
|