95 



Uj Vagy Kevesbbd Tsmeri Szbmorcsogfdlek, Phallo]dei novi vel 

 minus cogniti. By C. Kalchbrenner. (From the Memoirs of the 

 Hungarian Academy of Sciences) 8vo, pp. 23, with 3 colored plates, 

 Budapest, 1880. — The immediate object which the author had in 

 view in the preparation of this memoir was to bring to the attention 

 of botanists several interesting species of the Phalloidd which had 

 been sent him and which proved to be new to science; but, in giv- 

 ing descriptions and colored figures of these, he has also taken occa- 

 sion to propose a soiTiewhat modified grouping of the known genera 

 mto families, and to give a list of such genera and species as were either 

 overlooked by Schlechtendal or have been detected and described 

 since the appearance of the latter's monograph* of the order in io6r. 

 Mr. Kalchbrenner first divides the order into two sections; (i) Exo- 

 spORi,including species in which the sporiferous mass is seated on a pil- 

 eus discrete from the stipe {Mitraii)^ or on a pileus confluent with the 

 stipe {Capitati)\ and (2) Endospori, comprehending species whose 

 stipe divides into simple or anastomosing laciniae, which are always 

 joined at the apex {Conjugaii)^ or into free and radiating laciniae 

 {Ltberatiy This arrangement gives rise to four families: L Exospon 

 mitraii=^PhaUei,Yx,\ II, Exospon capitati=Corynttei,K^\chhx,i III. 

 Endospori conjiigati=Clathrei^ Fr.; IV. Endospori liber ati^=Ly surety 

 Fr. The author remarks that the *' Father of Mycology, E, Fries, and 

 those authors who follow him, have adopted but three families of the 

 Fhalloidei, but to these I have thought a fourth should be added for 

 the reception of Symbhwi {si'c^ and of those cognate species which 

 have been more recently described." ; 



Since the time of Fries's arrangement of the E/ia//oidei\ several 

 new genera and many new species have been described, and, while 

 this may possibly necessitate a still further division of the order, it is 

 unfortunate that Mr. Kalchbrenner, in attempting to supply such a 

 want, should have grouped together in his new family {Corynitei) so 

 incongruous genera as CoryntteSy B. & C, Simblum, Klotzsch, Foe- 

 tidaria^ St. Hil., and Kalchbrennera^ Berk. We have already, in a 

 former note,f suggested that the genus Corynites\\^% very weak claims 

 to be regarded as generically distinct from Cynophallus ; the two al- 

 leged characters upon which it is founded are not at all constant, 

 and, even supposing that they were, one of them— the perforation at 

 the apex — is trivial at the best. At all events, Corynitesh^Xovig^^ to the 

 iamWy E/iallei. Placing the genus Simhlum (or Symblumj\ as the 

 author invariably spells it) and the unknown, although apparently 

 closely allied genus Eoettd aria, [ | in the same family with Corynite $ 



• Linnaea^ Vol. xv. f This Journal, Vol. vii, p. 30. • 



} Nomen ab (SlfxfiXov^' favus, — K\olz?^c\i in Hook. Bot. Misc. ii, p. 164. 



• \ No specimen nor drawing to illustrate this genus proposed by St. Hilaire was 

 preserved, and the sole species, coccinca, is known only from a description in the 

 Annaies des Sciences A^aturelles (2 ser., viii, p. 263). The genus is clearly the same 

 as Slmblum, St. Hilaire's description of the capitulum -" compos*? dun reseau 

 double, i mailles inegales, et qui semble forme d'une espece de cordonnet," etc., 

 seems to have puzzled botanists. Schlechtendal thinks that the expressiou reseau 

 double m^^n?, a double network, or, in other words, one network within another, 

 but it is probable that the author refers to the doubling laterally of the branches 

 which compose the network. An example of this structure may be seen in thecap^ 

 itulurn of Shnblum rubescens, in PI, I, Vol, vij gf the Byt,j.KT{N\ 



