1901] Two Mushroom Books 143 
as Russula emetica, which demand the most accurate treatment. 
Nothing is said by Miss Marshall, any more than by the authors of 
“ Among the Mushrooms," of the viscidity characteristic of this 
plant. In fact no mention of this character is made under the 
genus, and yet it is of the utmost importance in distinguishing 
between species. The author's final remark that Russula emetica 
* may readily be distinguished by its peppery taste," betrays igno- 
rance of the existence of other red species that are also acrid. She 
seems, indeed, to share the too common conviction, that any acrid 
red Russula is Æ. emetica. Her treatment of the yellow Amanitas is 
dangerous. The final recommendation in regard to them — that 
those with a cup are edible — is most unwise, for its application may 
not be restricted by careless people — those most exposed to danger. 
Another instance of inaccuracy is in the statement, in regard to 
the genus Hygrophorus, that the gills are decurrent. Although this 
is true of many conspicuous species, so that an incorrect impression 
is easily gained by an unobservant person, it is by no means uni- 
versally or even generally the case. Examination of some common 
species, Æ. miniatus, H. puniceus, H. conicus and H. cAlorophanus, 
for instance, will show an entirely different state of things. A few 
pages further on we are told under Zefrofa procera, that “ there is no 
poisonous species for which it can be mistaken, if one bears in 
mind" its structual characteristics. Has the author never heard of 
Lepiota Morgani, a dangerous species, which a tyro would easily 
mistake for Z. procera? Another source of dissatisfaction with the 
descriptions is their extreme scantiness in some cases. ‘The char- 
acterization of some genera is so slight as to amount to nothing at 
all; examples are Pholiota, Panaeolus (black, ovoid spores, cap 
smooth and not striate, a fleshy stem "), Physalacria, (* small, simple, 
hollow, and enlarged at the apex”), Lachnocladium (‘leathery 
plants covered with hairs”) and Trametes. 
The discovery of other inaccuracies and omissions of this kind 
must be left to the readers. One conspicuous tendency to misinform 
the uninstructed must however be mentioned. We all know the 
popular difficulty caused by Latin names. Recognizing this, the 
author, as her preface states, makes a point of marking the length of 
vowels and the place of accents. If her desire has been to record 
prevalent errors in the pronunciation of Latin, she has been remark- 
-ably successful. But she should have been surer of her ground 
