120 



would now remark. Alluding to the genus Peziza as hitherto con- 

 stituted, Herr Fiickel asks, "Is it possible that Peziza onotica and 

 Peziza atrata can properly belong to the same genus?" I would ask, 

 in reply, Whether the potato and the nightshade ought to remain in 

 one genus ? Surely they differ quite as much from one another as the two 

 pezizce alluded to even if their higher position in the vegetable world be taken 

 into the account. There is as good reason, proceeds the author, for the division 

 of the genus peziza as there is for that of sphoeria, as in the latter there is an 

 endless variety in the perithecia so is there in the tups of the former. Fiickel 

 lays great weight on the differences of the sjjoridia, and thinks that eventually 

 no fungi whose spores differ materially in the most highly develojjed form of 

 their fruit can be suffered to remain the san<e genus, although we may be as 

 yet far removed from a knowledge of their various phases sufficient to assign 

 them their full characters. NotwithstandinL' this dogma he leaves the genus 

 ascobulus entire, disregarding the vast differences in their sporidia, an omissinu 

 which has been happily remedied by Mon. Boudier, in his excellent monograph 

 of that genus. To give an instance of Herr Fuckel's new genera, the plant 

 published in his fungi rhenani as peziza lichenicala he has removed in his sym- 

 bolce into a new genus called ahlesia, the only grounds for this are its having 

 asci at first stuffed \vith minute granules, afterwards containing 16 spores. 

 The first-named jjeculiarity is, I believe, common to many ascigerous fungi in 

 au early sta' e, and the latter character is found also in the genus ascobolus. 

 Fiickel descriljes, I think, 28 new genera of pezizei, three of which contain only 

 a single species, eight contain two species each, others 3, 4, and 5 species, an 

 amount of subdixision, generally on very slight grounds, tending much to in- 

 crease the difficidties of the study. The differences of these new genera are so 

 abscme as to have escaped the keen eye of Fries ; but to take an instance. The 

 genus plicaris Fiickel is described as having asci covered with oblique trans- 

 verse folds, a character which I have been quite unable to perceive ; he in- 

 cludes in this genus the following pezizoe : P. carbonaria, P. postulata, P. 

 badia, P. cerea, P. repanda, P. reticulata, and P. trachycarpa Currey. I have 

 \vith me a mounted specimen of the last named species, so that persons can 

 observe for themselves if such a character be discernible ; if a ;J-inch object- 

 glass will not show it, surely a beginner must be sorely jsuzzled where to jjlace 

 the pezizce just alluded to. Fiickel seems to think that as the sphcerioe 

 have been distributed in different genera, partly from the differences 

 of their j)erithecia, so may the pezizoe from those of their cups : 

 but later writers, as Winter and Fiickel himself, are obliged to 

 abandon many of their new genera of speceriui, which, when more 

 maturely considered, are found to be untenalile. De Notaris, Cesati, 

 Nitschke and Niessl, Bonorda and Corda, have created genera without end 

 thus multiplying synonyms and adiling to the confusion of the subject. Herr 

 Winter has made some useful remarks on the sphasriacous genus sordaria to 

 which I would call attention as confirmatory of my view of the useless multi- 



