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! Fries, in his _Systema Mycologicum_, 1829, summed up in most wonderful way the work of all his predecessors and the mycologic science of his time. In reading Fries the modern student hardly knows which most to admire, the author's far-reaching, patient research, the singular acumen of his taxonomic instinct, the graceful exactness of the Latin in which his conclusions are expressed, or the delicate courtesy with which he touches the work even the most primitive, of those his predecessors or contemporaries. Nevertheless in our particular group even the determinations of Fries are not conclusive. He himself often confesses as much. The microscopic technique of that day did not yield the data needful for minute comparison among these most delicate forms. It remained for DeBary and Rostafinski to introduce a new factor into the description of species, and by spore-measurement and the delineation of microscopic detail to supply an element of definiteness which has no parallel in the work of any earlier student of this group. Under these conditions the revision undertaken by Rostafinski was of a most heroic sort. His work was almost a new beginning; and while in nomenclature he was inclined to follow the Paris Code, yet the inadequacy of the earlier descriptions often made such a course impracticable. The synonymy of Rostafinski is largely that of Fries, and upon this the Polish author attempts to apply the law of priority. In the historical note, _wzmianka historyczna_, accompanying the description of each specific form, he generally states the reason for the nomenclature he adopts, whether selected from the mass of supposed synonymy or introduced by himself _de novo_. Unfortunately, Rostafinski is sometimes purely arbitrary in his selections. He sometimes changes a specific or even generic name, otherwise correctly applied, simply because in primary etymological significance the name seems to him inappropriate. In such cases it is proper to restore the earlier name. Nevertheless Rostafinski is still our most trustworthy guide.