84 Transactions British Mycological Society. 
nostoc to the Chroococcaceae in certain characters as men- 
tioned above appears to be due to the common palmelloid nature 
rather than close systematic relationship since we have seen 
that Leuconostoc differs from this family in many details of 
taxonomic importance. Leuconostoc certainly cannot be re- 
garded as derived from the Nostocaceae or other filamentous 
algae. It is likely that the palmelloid character in this genus 
has had an independent phylogenetic development from that 
of other bacterial and algal types. 
In conclusion the writer wishes to acknowledge the kindness 
of those who have sent him specimens of Leuconostoc and related 
organisms, or information respecting them. Thanks are par- 
ticularly due to Col. Wall, J.P. of West Ham, Dr Ashby of 
Barbados and Prof. Van der Bijl of Stellenbosch. 
LITERATURE. 
(1) BENECKE, W.—Bau und Leben der Bakterien, 1912. 
(2) CrENKowsky, L.—Ueber die Gallertbildungen des Zuckerriibensaftes. 
Arbeit. d. Naturforscherges. a. d. Univ. zu Kharkow, x11, 1878. 
(3) CzAPpEK, F.—Biochemie der Pflanzen, 1, Ed. 1, 1913. 
(4) FiscHER, A.—The structure and functions of Bacteria, 1900. 
(5) GaRDNER, N. L.—Cytological Studies in Cyanophyceae. Univ. of Calif. 
1906. 
(6) JENSEN, OrLA-.—The Lactic Acid Bacteria. Danish Acad. Sci. 191g. 
(7) Larar, F.—Technical Mycology, I, 1898. 
(8) LIESENBERG, C. and Zopr, W.—Ueber den sogenannten Froschlaichpilz. 
Beitr. zur Physiol. u. Morphol. nieder Organismen, I, pp. I-29, 1892. 
(9) Tunmann, O.—Pflanzenmikrochemie, 1913. 
(10) Van TrEGHEM, P.—Sur la Gomme de Sucrerie (Leuconostoc mesenteroides). 
Ann. Sci. Nat. 6th sér., Tom. vii (Bot.), pp. 180-203, 1878. 
(11) WrINnstow, C.-E. A. and others.—The Families and Genera of Bacteria. 
Journ. Bact. v, 1920. 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE MYCO- 
PHAGOUS PROPENSITIES OF SLUGS. 
By W.T. Eliot, DDS. FLS. BZ oe 
During the years 1917-1920 the following observations were 
made in order to try and establish any fact showing that some 
species of slugs are more attracted by fungi as food than others, 
and to ascertain whether slugs have a preference for any par- 
ticular fungi. This subject does not appear to have received 
much attention. Gain (1891) made an extensive series of ob- 
servations on the food of mollusca generally, but only refers to 
ten species of fungi. He found that Boletus edulis is eaten with 
avidity by Avion ater and Limax maximus, that Polyporus 
squamosus is scarcely touched by Arion hortensis, Agniolimax 
agrestis and Limax arborum, whereas Agriolimax agrestis is 
