Bibliographical Notices. ' 443 



uliginosa, the fertile fronds of which do certainly very closely resemble 

 those of L. spinulosa, but we do not think that there is, at present, 

 sufficient evidence to show that it is really a connecting link between 

 the latter plant and L. cristata. 



From the plants that have been usually combined under the 

 name oi Athyrium filix-foemina, the variety convexum of Newman is 

 separated, and stands as a species imder the name of A. rhcBticum, 

 Roth. We are inclined to admit this "split," on account of the 

 constant dissimilarity of the plants. The A. rhceticum can hardly be 

 confounded vrith any of the forms of the variable A. filix-foemina. 

 We are not satisfied that the correct name has been adopted for it, 

 because there remain some doubts as to what plant was intended by 

 Linnseus under the name of Polypodium rhceticum. 



With these remarks we conclude, only adding that we can cordially 

 recommend Mr. Moore's book. 



Beitr'dge zur Myeologie. Von G. Fresenius, M.D. Frankfurt A. M. 

 1850, 1852. Hefte 1, 2. 4to, pp. 38. pi. 4, & pp. 80. pi. 5. 



It hasbeen objected against the German botanists of the presentday, 

 and not without good reason, that they work too frequently in almost 

 utter ignorance of what is done by French and Enghsh botanists as 

 regards the very subjects on which they are occupied. If this applies 

 with any degree of justice to those who are engaged in the study of 

 Phaenogamous plants, much more so is the charge applicable to their 

 Cryptogamists. Species which are in the hands of every one, and 

 which have been long since described, are daily brought forward as 

 new, and this frequently even where German authors have already 

 published their observations. One lichenologist, for instance, coolly 

 states his ignorance of the works of Hedvrig and Dillenius, while others 

 professedly have never consulted the large collections of Corda, and 

 even in publications like Sturm's Deutschlands Flora, a work which 

 bears a high character for general correctness, many species appear 

 under new names which have long since been published, while repre- 

 sentations of things entirely different are given for common species, 

 such as Pezisa aurantia. 



Meanwhile it is most unfortunate as regards Mycology, that the 

 copious collection of Rabenhorst, though containing many subjects 

 of first-rate interest, is so little to be trusted in respect of nomen- 

 clature. Some very gross errors have been pointed out by the editor 

 himself, who seems to depend very greatly upon others, not only for 

 specimens, but for names, and we could ourselves furnish a list of 

 some length. We believe that Klotzsch has had httle or nothing to 

 do with the work, since the completion of the second number. 



If however a very glaring instance is wanted in confirmation of our 

 remarks, we need but refer our readers to the work of Bonorden on 

 Mycology, which, though containing some good figures amidst a good 

 deal of trash, is full from one end to the other of the grossest blun- 

 ders, not only as regards synonyms and nomenclature, but even in 

 points of affinity, where the merest tyro might have come to a true 

 judgement. It is therefore with some pleasure that we are able to 



