A monograph on the genus Galerina Earle / by Alexander H. Smith and Rolf Singer.

PREFACE
By ALEXANDER H. SMITH
In taxonomic treatments a certain pattern must be maintained in order
that the taxa concerned may be formally considered in a systematic manner. TEis final arrangement, which appears straightforward and logical, is
very often the end result of years of study involving an evaluation of all
available characters, and much arranging and rearranging of species. Clos6
scrutiny of the finished work is often necessary to detect the areas in which
uncertainty still exists.
It thus seems appropriate in this preface to dwell briefly on the history
of the efforts, individual and mutual, which have led to the present monograph, in order that others, especially younger workers, may understand
how such projects actually evolve.
One of the basic forces involved in the production of this monograph
was frustration. When I first started to study Galerinae with the aid of
Atkinson's (1918) and Kauffman's (1918) treatments of Galera, I put names
on a lot of collections even though the process left me with a keen feeling of
dissatisfaction. Soon I began to write up my own collections with an eventual monograph in mind, and actually had a small manuscript on the genus
when Kiihner (1935) published. I soon became aware of the limitations of
KUhner's work as applied to North American Galerinae, and went ahead
with the process of collecting and taking data. This was a sporadic process,
being limited largely because of my interest in Mycena, Cortinarius and
Psathyrella, rather than from a lack of Galerinae in the flora of the areas in
which I was collecting. However, during the very dry season of 1952 at
Mt. Rainier National Park in the state of Washington, the absence of other
fungi made it necessary to concentrate on microhabitats in places ordinarily
too wet for the fruiting of agarics, and literally a new world of Galerina was
discovered. This one season showed clearly that Galerina was a large genus
and that the problems of speciation were not materially different from those
in such genera as Inocybe or Cortinarius, even though many of the characters
involved were different. For a person with a fairly extensive previous
knowledge of the genus, one such season was sufficient to bring out the
pattern of speciation in a clear and convincing manner. t
As a result of the field season of 1952, during which time my ideas on
speciation crystallized, a revised preliminary manuscript was drawn up.
Since many of the microscopic characters finally used in differentiation
had been observed from dried material revived in ammonia or KOH, my