NOTICES OF BOOKS. 



187 



Division II. — Eumycetozoa. 



Group I. SOROPHOEE^. 



A. GUTTCLINE^. 



Gen. 1. Copromyxa. 

 2. Guttulina. 



B. DlCTYOSTELIACE^. 



Gen. 1. Dictyostelium. 



2. Acrasis. 



3. Polysphondylium. 



Group II. Endospore.e. 

 Orel. I. Peeitbiche^. 



Fam. 1. Clathboptychiace^. 



Gen. 1. Clathroptychium. 



2. Entericlium. 



Fam. 2. Cribeariace^. 

 Gen. 1. Dictydium. 

 2. Cribraria. 



Ord. II. Endotriche.e. 

 Subord. 1. Stereoneme.s:. 



I. CUiCAEIACEiE. 



Fam. 1. Physare^. 

 Gen. 1. Physarum. 



2. Craterium. 



3. Badhamia. 



4. Leocarpus. 



5. Tilmadoche. 



6. Fuligo. 



7. Aethaliopsis. 



Fam. 2. Didymiace^. 

 Gen. 1. Didymium. 

 2. Lepidoderma. 



Fam. 3. Spumaeiace^. 

 Gen. 1. Spumaria. 

 2. Diachea. 



II. Amauroch.etace^. 

 Fam. 1. Stemonite^. 

 Gen. 1. Stemonitis. 



2. Comatricha. 



3. Lamproderma. 



Fam. 2. ENEETHENEMEiE. 



Gen. 1. Enerthenema. 



Fam. 3. Keticulariace.e. 

 Gen. 1. Amaurochajte. 

 2. Reticularia. 



Subord. II. Ccelonejie.e. 

 Fam. 1. Trichiace^. 

 Gen. 1. Hemiarcyria. 

 2. Trichia. 



Fam. 2. Abcybiace^. 

 Gen. 1. Arcyria. 



2. Cornuvia. 



3. Lycogala. 



Fam. 3. Peeich.enace^. 

 Gen. 1. Perichffina. 

 2. Lachnobolus. 



Fam. 4. Liceace^. 

 Gen. 1. Licea. 



2. Tubulina. 



3. Tubulifera. 



Group. III. ExospoRE.E. 

 Gen. 1. Ceratium. 



It will thus be seen that Dr. Zopf has found it necessary to 

 modify Kostafinski's classification. Following the above order the 

 author goes over the whole series in detail, giving a short, and as a 

 rule very clear, account of each form. Perhaps it should be known 

 that this very comprehensive and well illustrated account of the 

 morphology and physiology, and complete systematic treatment of 

 a group of organisms as interesting as they are obscure, has been 

 produced in handy form at the price of five shillings. Gr. M. 



Die Spaltpihe. Von Dr. W. Zopf. 3rd ed. [Encyclop:Bdie der 

 Naturwissenschaften. Breslau, Eduard Trewendt. 1885] . 



Any contribution to the literature of this subject made by an 

 author educated in Botany is pretty sure to be distinguishable at 

 once from the work of a pathologist. The one recognises througli- 

 out that the organisms lie treats of are plants more or less like 

 certain allies ; while the other apparently regards them as a set of 

 objects by themselves, to be classified in peculiar ways and after no 

 botanically acceptable fashion. No doubt our ignorance of the 



