LETTER No. 57. 



...BY C. G. LLOYD. 



M. C. COOKE. 



There recently died (November, 1914) in England, a man who has made more 

 impression on British Mycology than any other person except Berkeley. A most 

 voluminous writer, an indefatigable worker, he did much to popularize the subject 

 of mycology in England. It was not my privilege to know him during his active 

 days, but I met him once or twice at Kew, where he visited occasionally during his 

 declining years. 



Personally, I think that Cooke's works will be recognized in the future more 

 from their quantity than their painstaking quality. He entered into many branches 

 of natural history and animal life, as well as all departments of plant life, algae, 

 diatoms and fungi from beginning to end. No man lives, or ever did live, who 

 could master fungi in all its extent, and for a man to spread his knowledge over 

 such a wide field necessitates a very thin layer. Had Cooke put the same amount 

 of work and energy in a more restricted field he would have built a monument for 

 himself such as Lister built on the Myxomycetes, or Boudier on the Discomycetes. 

 Cooke was a very facile writer and as a popular writer on the subject in hand he had 

 no equal. He was also a good artist, some of the pictures he drew of agarics from 

 the living plant being.- scarcely subject to the faultfinder's criticism. A saying 

 current among European mycologists is, that Cooke was so talented he could draw a 

 picture of an agaric that he had never seen. However, he attempted to do so 

 much work that he necessarily slighted much of it. 



We present herewith a bibliography of his writings taken from the list in the 

 Lloyd Library. Many articles scattered through various journals and periodical 

 literature do not appear in this bibliography. The one book that Cooke wrote, 

 and which appeals to rrte as'having the most merit was the first edition of his "Hand- 

 book of British Fungi.' 1 This work I have always thought to be a most useful 

 publication, the information being presented in a very plain and lucid style. It 

 also gives more evidence of original investigation, and, I think, taking it as a whole, 

 is more accurate than any other work he has written. The work is exhausted and 

 out of print, commands a high price; three or four pounds, I believe, being paid 

 when a copy is found in the secondhand dealer's hands. The second edition of this 

 book does notrompare with the first, being simply a translation from Fries, and with 

 no acknowledgment as far as I have ever seen. 



Cooke's "Handbook of Australian Fungi" is neither practical nor accurate, and 

 I think few books on mycology have been written with as little basis for existence. 

 Cooke's work on the Discomycetes was based on the study of dried specimens, 

 consequently the numerous errors are largely due to this fact. Cooke's most ambi- 

 tious work, the "Illustrations of British Fungi," is a monumental work of labor and 

 patient application. I am told that not only did he make 'the original drawings of 

 the plants, but that the figures were actually transferred by Cooke to the stones 

 from which they were printed. 



To sum up, although Cooke was a wonder in the amount of work that he 

 accomplished, what appeals to me most strongly is the conservative nature of his 

 nomenclature. Should a monument ever be raised to him, I trust they will carve 

 on it in large letters: 



"He was never a name juggler." 



A detailed account of Cooke's life is given in the Journal of Botany (British), 

 February, 1915, by J. Ramsbottom, B. A., in which is recorded many details that 

 I am unable to produce on account of limited space. 



Those who are interested in the works of Cooke will also find that Mr. Rams- 

 bottom's valuable article supplies all that can be expected. 



2 



