ice as they were largely devoted to "new species," and Morgan's 

 papers, of which the Agaric portion at least was made up by adapting 

 Fries' descriptions to Berkeley's determinations of dried specimens. 

 It was then a matter of the greatest difficulty to get names for our 

 commonest plants. With the help of Hard's book any one ought to 

 work out the usual fungi that he meets. I believe that the book will 

 do more to popularize mycology in America than any work that was 

 ever issued. It would hardly be fair to contrast Hard's book with 

 those that have gone before, as he has had the advantage of the work 

 done by others, and has gotten many things right that he would 

 have gotten wrong a few years ago. Professor Hard was also wise 

 to delay publishing his work until he had met and learned the 

 most of the common plants. Atkinson's book, a few years ago, 

 which was the first step in the right direction, was an immature 

 production. The author had not learned a great deal of his subject 

 when he went into print and the result was a fragmentary account, 

 good as far as it went, but it did not go very far. Hard's book will 

 supply much of this deficiency. 



As to the question of the accuracy of the names employed, while 

 there is much yet to be learned of the history of American plants, 

 Hard's book well represents the present knowledge. It will be many 

 years before the ultimate truth as to many American plants is worked 

 out. We are particularly glad to note that Professor Hard has not 

 resorted to any cheap process of name juggling, but has used the names 

 in common use. 



This book is a practical demonstration of the value of photography 

 in mycology, a fact, however, that was clearly demonstrated by Atkin- 

 son's book. It is an evidence of the practical side of the American 

 character that we have adopted an easy and practical way of illustrat- 

 ing our fungi, while the old world lags behind. There is not in 

 Europe to-day a single, popular book on mycology as well and as 

 clearly illustrated as Hard's book. As our American plants are nearly 

 all the same as those of Europe, to any one in Europe studying fungi 

 this book will be found of more service than any one popular book 

 they now have. 



The Gastromycetes of Hard's book are up to date, accurately and 

 correctly named. 1 It is the first connected and well illustrated account 

 that we have of our American puff balls. All the common species are 

 well represented, and in future there will be no reason why any one 



'The few errors thatoccur are mostly in the advertise ments. Thus " Roth " for Rostkovius; 

 I.ycoperdon acuminptum " Bosc ;" Lycoperdon pusillum " Kr." As Professor Hard inserts ad- 

 " lie fetis" 



vertisements in accordance with the fetish custom in order to make the book look " scientific," 

 and has copied them from other books without knowing- anything about their meaning, he 

 naturally gets more or less of them incorrect. As the custom is both senseless and useless 

 when it is employed in this way (and it is the usual way that it is employed) it does not matter 

 much whether they are right or wrong. As long as he goes through the'form of writing some 

 personal name after his plant names to make a show of learning, it is immaterial whether he 

 writes after Lycoperdon cruciatum "Koth" or "Ross" or " Rostafinska " or " Roussel " or 

 "Rostkovius." They all have the same meaning for Mr. Hard and the most of his readers. 

 Some of the mistakes he makes in attempting to follow this fetish custom are highly amusing. 

 Thus, " Moy " I presume was some Chinese writer. Montague who spent his life seeking glory 

 along the usual " new species" route, might be chagrined to find himself referred to as " Mr. 

 Montgomery." Such is fame ! 



430 



