ius and he was honest enough to say so, but he changed most of the 

 family names of Michelius because "the names are little harmonious 

 they have been suppressed."! 



In tracing back the species of the genus Lycoperdon in the 

 museums and literature of Europe, little that is definite can be un- 

 earthed previous to Vittadini. It is certain that the old botanists Vail- 

 lant Michelius, Schaeffer, Bulliard gave some very bad cuts of these 

 plants. Many of them cannot be even identified at this day. The 

 early botanists who gave names, Linnaeus, Batsch and Fries in his 

 Systema worked mostly with these old figures, and as a result their 

 work is as vague as the old figures. Persoon got his ideas of the genus 

 Lycoperdon directly from plants but it was before the days of the micro- 

 scope and his characters are largely drawn from their size form and 

 color, which characters are of little value in specific distinction. Be- 

 sides'the vast amount of pioneer work that Persoon did prevented him 

 from getting definite ideas of the species of Lycoperdon. This is 

 evident from his herbarium where he has labeled many of his plants 

 with a ? mark. I was much disappointed in not being able to decide 

 definitely as to the most of Persoon's species. 



Vittadini was the first author to do clear and concise work with 

 the genus. He plainly ix>ints out the characters of his species, and 

 gives good illustrations of them. His specimens, correctly labeled, are 

 found in the museums of Kew and Paris to-day. Almost every one of 

 Vittadini's species can be definitely known. 



Much confusion has been introduced into the history of Euro- 

 pean Lycoperdons through the work of Honorden who wrote shortly 

 after Vittadini. Through the kindness of Dr. Magnus I had inquiries 

 made but was unable to find that he left any specimens. He was a 

 close observer, too close in fact, for he observed and recorded many 

 unimportant details such as the color of the plant at different stages of 

 its growth, which details are of no value and tend only to confuse. He 

 described thirteen "new species" which has proven an unlucky num- 

 ber for most of them are unrecognizable. Euckel issued exsiccatae of 

 many of Bonorden's species and as both lived in the same region, 

 Fuckel's specimens are often taken as a kind of commentary on Bon- 

 orden's species. Fuckel misnamed such common species as Lycoper- 

 don gemmatum, which no one should mistake, and I feel that not much 

 dependence can be placed on his interpretation of Bonorden's puzzling 

 species. We have adopted a couple of Bonorden's names but we adopt 

 them on Dr. Hollos' interpretations. In this connection, we will state 

 that we believe the Doctor reached his conclusions thereon mostly from 

 the appropriate names Bonorden gave plants: thus "fusi-um" for the 

 dark species; "cupricum" for the copper colored species, etc. At any 

 rate, they are good names for the plants and we think the Doctor 

 was wise in adopting them. 



