1901] Recent Publications 39 
formis) 152 (Pholiota aurivella), and elsewhere, is of no possible use 
in such a book. It gives no information to anybody. A puzzle 
in synonymy is offered to inexperienced readers on pages 16 and 
17, where the bewildering nature of the “ambiguous trametes” is 
exemplified by treating it as Z*amefes in the text, and as Daedalea 
in the accompanying figure — all without a word of explanation. 
This is the more remarkable in view of the absence of any treatment 
(other than this brief obscure mention of a single species) of the 
common genera Trametes, Daedalea, and  Lenzifes, and is one of the 
many indications that might be cited that the book has been hurried 
to publication before all the matter that properly belongs in such a 
popular exposition of the more important genera was assembled. 
To insist on the absence of a definite plan in the book, other 
than that of getting a certain amount of available material between 
two covers and thus catching the market, would perhaps be unjust 
in view of what is told us in the introduction, where the author says: 
* Since the issue of my ‘ Studies and Illustrations of Mushrooms,’ 
....there have been so many inquiries for them and for literature 
dealing with a larger number of species, it seemed desirable to 
publish in book form a selection from the number of illustrations of 
these plants which I have accumulated during the past six or seven 
years.” 
Yet, by the author’s own admission, the contents of the book are 
to some extent the result of accident. In this respect the book com- 
pares unfavorably with Cooke’s well known “ British Edible Fungi," 
which selects a few conspicuous species, or even with Mr. Mcllvaine’s 
tome, which attempts to include all American fungi known to be 
edible. 
Passing from general considerations to the criticism of certain 
details, such as the spelling of generic and specific names, we 
find too many examples of unscholarly oversight and error. Some 
instances of carelessness in the proof reading are conspicuous, 
as ENTOMOLA p. 143, and again on p. 144; fuligineus, hygropha- 
nus (as English words) p. 266. Other errors can hardly be set down 
to the same cause, particularly when the inaccuracies of the text are 
accurately reproduced in the legends of the plates and in the index. 
The following may be cited: Amanita caesaria (caesarea), p. iv, and 
pl 19; Hebeloma crustinuliforme (—tulin—), p. 158 and fig. 148 ; 
Pluteus tomentosulsus ( —ulus) p. 139, 140; Boletus luridis (— us), p. 
