clature correctly back to the days of Persoon. It seems to me very 

 illogical to make a law requiring others to do what the makers them- 

 selves can not or will not do. 



MUTINUS BAMBUSINUS. 



We present herewith an excellent photograph (Fig. 391) of Muti- 

 nus bambusinus, which we have received from Mr. C. B. Ussher, Straits 

 Settlements^ We published in our Synopsis of the Phalloids a figure 



F TJH ( Fig. 26 ) of this species, but it is not as clear nor does 



/4 it show the cellular structure of the stem as well as the 



JS photograph that Mr. Ussher sent. Mutinus bambusi- 



fc3 nus is widely spread in the tropics and appears to be 



J&Si the most common species of Mutinus in warm coun- 



tries. It replaces there Mutinus caninus of Europe, 

 and Mutinus elegans of the United States. It was 

 originally named from Java, but is found in the Cele- 

 bes, Brazil, and doubtless in many warm countries. 

 It has appeared adventitiously a few times in the hot- 

 houses at Kew. This tropical species is quite similar 

 to Mutinus caninus of Europe, but has a larger, more 

 pointed, more rugulose, fertile portion. The cells of 

 the fertile portion are small, in strong contrast to 

 those of the stem. The entire plant is red. 



In publishing Mr. Ussher's fine photograph, we 

 would again call the attention of those residing in 

 warm countries to the importance of photographing 

 their phalloids. Only by means of photography will a 

 correct knowledge of tropical phalloids ever be ob- 

 tained. We trust that Mr. Ussher will not fail to 

 photograph all he finds for the phalloids of his sec- 

 tion have never been worked, and he will doubtless 

 find some novelties as well as add to our knowledge 

 of the distribution of the "old species." 



Since this was written we learn that Mr. Ussher 

 has accepted a position in Java. We are rather sorry, 

 for Java phalloids are well known while those of 

 Fig. 391 Straits Settlements are hardlv known at all. 



The Type Locality. 



ity " of each 



jump at conclusions and make some funny mistakes. Thus in North An 

 that Polyporus Columbiensis came from the "type locality, Columbia river, South Carolina" and 

 that its " Distribution is South Carolina." The type specimen did' not grow within twelve hundred 

 miles of South Carolina, and I doubt if the author ever saw a specimen from South Carolina or from 

 anywhere else, or would know it if he did, or for that matter if any one else would know it either. 

 The "type" is a little, discolored remnant that should never have been named. It has never been 

 recognized since it was" described" seventy years ago and never will be, and was never within a thousand 

 miles of South Carolina. What rubbish they do scrape up and pass off for science nowadays! 



505 



