no 



with a kind of superstitious loathing, — a feeling which is even jet not 

 altogether eliminated. lu this country, the cottage naturalists, who in 

 days gone by adorned our botany with a store of graceful names, — 

 such as eyebright, goldylocks, heartsease, maidenhair, meadow-sweet, 

 pennyroyal, self-heal, silverweed, snowdrop, wake-robin, and many 

 others, — applied to the Fungi only such terms as were expressive of 

 abhorrence : paddock-stools, stink-horns, jews'-ears, \vitches' butter, and 

 the like. And on the continent, though certain esculent species 

 received happier titles — for example, the morelle, chanterelle, and the 

 mouceron, — yet the German popular names, as recorded by Schceffer, 

 are but little in advance of our own. Few indications could be given 

 more conclusive than this as to the general dislike and contempt 

 in which the fungi were held ; and he was a bold as well as an observing 

 man, who first ventured to devote his time and his name to a vindica- 

 tion of their right to be esteemed not less perfect, nor less interesting, 

 tlian other portions of that work, tlie whole of which was pronounced 

 by the Great Creator to be very good. Pier Antonio Michelli seems to 

 have been the first botanist who gave much attention to the lower 

 orders of the Cryptor/amia. He was born in Florence in the year 1679, 

 of parents in humble life, by whom he was consigned to the business of 

 bookseUiug. Michelli, however, became inspired with so great a love 

 for the study of plants, that he gave up his occupation, and afterwards 

 became botanist to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and superintendent of 

 the Botanic Gardens at Florence. Several of his writings are still 

 held in high estimation, but the work on which his fame chiefly rests 

 is tliat in which he announces the real nature of the sporidia in the 

 fungi, and overthrows the popular notion of these plants having an 

 anomalous or equivocal mode of generation. Michelli died in 1737, 

 from exhaustion induced by his arduous search after plants in the 

 mountainous parts of Northern Italy. His researches were continued 

 with much success by Bulliard in 1791, and Persoonin 1801, and more 

 recently bj^ Link and Nees von Eseubeck. But the name which fills 

 the highest place in the list of mycologists is undoubtedly that of Fries, 

 in whom we find such great talents for description and classification, com- 

 bined with such zeal for collecting, that he is said to have "passed half 

 his life in forests." The most modern and complete woi'k upon the 

 subject is that of Corda, which it is very difficult to obtain perfect. 

 Compared with older productions, the volumes of Corda illustrate 

 the immense advantage afforded by the use of the microscope in the 

 identification of species. Plates are now certainly less essential to the 

 botanist than they were, and those which are of most value contain 

 I'epreseutatious of magnified portions of plants. We must not how- 



