NOTICES OF BOOKS. 125 



perfect forms to the species to which they belong. We even venture 

 to think that in some instances Prof. Saccardo might have reduced 

 bulk by reducing species, as, for instance, at page 108, where 

 No. 260, Fhoma vLrvisibilis, and No. 264, Phovia mnumerahUu, are 

 evidently the same species, growing on the same host, in the same 

 locality, and differ only in name. 



There is a bulky index of 43 pages, which, if accurate, is always 

 a great boon, deserving of commendation. Unfortunately, practice 

 has proved that the Index to the previous portion of the work was 

 not so accurate as it might have been, and even in this we fail to 

 see the advantage of an alphabetical arrangement which places 

 U, V, Y, K, X, W, and Z in sequence. Not being well acquainted 

 with the Italian alphabet, we cannot say if such a sequence is 

 usually adopted. At the risk of increasing the bulk we woul,d also 

 have been glad to have found more synonyms in the Index, as we 

 have sought in vain for something to correspond to Crehella andro- 

 pogonis, described and figured by Berkeley many years ago. 

 Diplodia salicina Lev., though alluded to under No. 2009, has 

 escaped us. Spharopsis Mujipce Cke. (Grevillea, x., 123) makes no 

 sign in the Index, and Hendersonia ele(jans Berk, is not to be found 

 either there or in the genus Stctf/anospura. 



We would also be glad to learn what benefit accrues to botany 

 by the pedantic alteration of the orthography of generic names, 

 such as Cytospora for L'ytispora, Ncewospot-a for Nariiaspora, and 

 Stecjanosporium for Stegonusporium , especially after having been in 

 use for about half a century in their original form. 



The total change of specific names is also made in some 

 instances without apparent justification. Under No. 2275 the 

 original Diplodia Injaluspora C. & E. is changed to Diplodina ElUsii 

 Sacc, and no cause is assigned, although lujalospora does not 

 appear in the same genus. On the other hand, by means of 

 changed specific names in Asteroma, we get two (Nos. 6 and 56) 

 that are identical in one genus. 



Changes are also made in generic names, to which we take a 

 strong objection. Why is Tupospura, Fries Fl. Scan, 1835, set aside, 

 and Mastoiiiyces, Mont. 1848, adopted ; although, by the way, jlJdsto- 

 myces is omitted from the alphabetical index to the genera ? Again, 

 for what reason has T/iyrfu'diuni, Mont. 1836, been adopted, to the 

 exclusion of Cheiruspura, Fries Syst. Orb. Veg. (1825) ? Surely not 

 for any petty personal reason, we hope, although under strong 

 suspicion. Already there is a genus Thyridiuin -'' in the second 

 volume, and it is manifestly impolitic to employ two names which 

 only differ in a single letter. Why should an author with so fertile 

 an imagination give us such genera as the following : — L'ytuspura, 

 Cytospurina, L'ytosporeUa, and (Jytosporium ; as well as Thyridhivi, Thy' 

 ridaria,QM(\.Thy)sidiuvi; or Calosplueria and Ccelospharia ; oi'Massaria, 

 ]\Jas!iaiiclla, Mtissaruia, and Massuriuvalsa ; or Cryptospharia, CryjAo- 

 aphierclla, L'ryptospora, and C'ryptoapurella ! And in specific names 

 in the same genus [PIuniKi), why have we (169) tamaricaria, (172) 

 tumaricella, (173) tumaricina, and (174) Tamarisci ' 



* Thyridiuin is also a genus of Mosses. 



