veloped. This core I have noted on specimens for a long time, but did not correctly under- 

 stand it, as I took it to be diseased tissue. Hartig shows this core (Plate XVII) and explains 

 it in his classical work on Tree diseases, but it must be noted in passing that Hartig mis- 

 named Polyporus rheades as Polyporus dryadeus. It is a striking commentary on the state 

 of fungus taxonomy in Europe, that in Hartig's classical work, of the thirteen species he 

 so beautifully depicts, six surely, and probably seven, are misnamed. 



ILLUSTRATIONS OF JAPANESE FUNGI. 



We have received from the Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agri- 

 culture and Commerce, Japan, the first issue of a series, consisting of four 

 plates, devoted to the -illustration of Japanese fungi. As a striking evidence 

 of the wide distribution of fungi, any one who is familiar with these plants 

 can look over the figures and from the species illustrated would hardly 

 know whether they were collected in the United States, Europe or Japan. 

 Of the 38 species that are illustrated, 35 of them look familiar to us 

 and we believe that we have collected almost every one of them either 

 in the United States or Europe, with the exception of four. Polystictus 

 flabelliformis, a very familiar plant to us in Samoa, does not occur in the 

 United States or Europe. "Isaria arachnophila," which seems to be the 

 only misnamed plant on the plates (as it is probably not an Isaria, but a 

 Cordyceps, and has not the most remote resemblance to Isaria arach- 

 nophila), is unfamiliar to us. 



The .plates are a great credit to the publishers, both from their 

 accuracy and coloration. With .the exception of Isaria arachnophila, all 

 of them, we believe, are correctly determined, and we are very glad to 

 note that the names used are mostly those established in mycology, and 

 that no attention whatever has been paid to those engaged in juggling 

 fungus names. We are glad to see that every single one of the Gastero- 

 mycetes is not only characteristically illustrated, but correctly named. 

 Also that the author was fortunate enough to use the name Geaster hygro- 

 metricus, attributing it to Persoon, instead 'of the latest juggle, calling it 

 Geaster stellatus, or Astraeus stellatus and attributing it to Linnaeus, 

 or Morgan, or Schroeter, or somebody else that had nothing whatever 

 to do with it. 



If he had been as consistent in every particular, it would have been 

 much better. Thus, it is somewhat provoking to one familiar with the 

 situation to see a plant called "Spathularia clavata, Saccardo," which was 

 well illustrated and well known, and had a well-established name long be- 

 fore Saccardo was born. Or, to see a plant called "Ithyphyllus impudicus, 

 Fries," when Fries did not originate the specific name impudicus nor 

 sanction the genus Ithyphallus, and never used the combination in any 

 way. In citing authorities the author seems to be following the custom 

 of a few English writers of substituting, after the specific name, not 

 the name of the man who named the plant, but the name of the man 

 who made the combination. This custom is followed; so far as we know, 

 only by a few Japanese and a few English, and repudiated generally by 

 most English, the Americans, Germans, French, and all other nations, 

 as it should be by all, for it is based on dishonesty in principle. The 

 double system of advertising which is generally employed in America and 

 Germany is bad enough and leads to enough abuses, but if the dishonest 



15 



