CALVATIA RUBROFLAVA IN BRAZIL. 



Rev. J. Rick writes me that the species is "here common and grows in 

 sandy places everywhere." Is it not strange that this plant known heretofore 

 only from the United States and rare there so far as known (excepting in one 

 locality, Lafayette, Ind.), should prove a common species in Brazil? When 

 the science of mycology gets past its babyhood, and mycological observers turn 

 their attention from the hunt for "new species" to the study and distribution 

 of the old, then we can expect some interesting developments. We are well 

 convinced that the "puff balls" of the world are largely the same species and 

 that the number of species is. relatively few. But their distribution presents 

 some curious surprises. Witness the case of Arachnion album fairly common 

 in the United States and known in Europe from only one collection (Italy). 

 Or Bovistella Ohiensis, a most abundant plant in our Southern States and 

 known in Europe from one collection each from Germany and Spain. Or 

 Mitremyces Ravenelii of our Appalachian regions which proves to be a common 

 species in Japan. Or, Lycoperdon Wrightii which occurs in North and South 

 America, Java and Africa but has never been found in Europe. Truly we are 

 just beginning the real study of mycology. 



LASIOSPHAERA FENZLII IN SUMATRA.-In the museum at Leiden 

 I saw a large specimen of this plant, collected in Sumatra. It was over a foot 

 in diameter and all trace of peridium had fallen away. We think that our 

 account of ^ this plant (Myc. Notes, p. 191) and its habits is entirely correct. 

 It is the "giant puff ball" of India and the East Indies and seems there to 

 replace Calvatia gigantea of the remainder of the world. 



MYCOLOGICAL "LITERATURE." Much of th e mycological "litera- 

 ture" nowadays reminds me of one of the patent carpet sweepers that sweeps 

 up the trash and carries it along with it. Thus, sixty years ago, Tulasne wrote 

 a monograph of the Nidulariaceae. He hunted up all the old references and 

 pictures, reduced them to synonymy and listed them in detail. For the three 



I common species he gives sixty-one references, which was information at that 

 time, as it was original work. In 1902 Miss White, New York, writes again on 



! the Nidulariaceae, and gives with the same detail forty-one references, thirty- 



; six of them being copied with a few changes from Tulasne. In 1904 Dr. Hol- 

 los writes on the Nidulariaceae, and we find the same old list served up with a 



j little rearrangement, and a few additions, but practically the same thing. The 

 whole list is rubbish, and should have been dropped (in detail) after Tulasne 

 had shown it up. 



CAPITALIZING SPECIFIC NAMES. As we note that the Journal of 

 Mycology is printing personal specific names in lower case type, we suppose 

 there is some new "rule" on the subject. The editor is a great stickler for 

 "rules." We think it is really a good rule, for personal names are without 

 rdoubt used too much for plant names, and seeing their names in lower case 

 type ought to take some of the conceit out of the system. In our own case 

 if we ever experienced any secret pleasure in seeing "Hypocrea Lloydii" in type, 

 it was more than counterbalanced by the disgust we felt when we saw it printed 

 .as "Hypocrea lloydii " 



REPUBLICATION OF NOS. i. 2, 3 AND 4 MYCOLOGICAL NOTES. 

 (In order to supply the frequent demand we have republished the first four num- 

 oers. They will be mailed to any one on application to the Lloyd Library, Cin- 

 cinnati, Ohio. 



We are now in position to complete most of the sets of our publication, 

 tfith the exception of The Volvae and Mycological Notes Nos. 12, 13 and 14 

 Imd 19, the latter having recently become exhausted. 



347 



