
240 

and does not contain a reference to Petermann’s Fournal, 
to the French or German Geographical Societies, nor even 
to the American Geographical Society. 
Withthis exception the “Annual of Scientific Discovery” 
is entitled to our earnest commendation. The editor and 
his assistants have done their work well, and the only 
editorial slip that we have noticed is the insertion of the 
same paragraph in two separate departments (see pp. 122 
and 208). The “Notes of the Editor” at the commence- 
ment of the volume are, as in preceding years, especially 
deserving of praise, and indicate in a comparatively short 
space the progress of science for the year. 
Mycological Illustrations, being Figures and Descriptions 
of New and Rare Hymenomycetous Fungt. Edited by 
W..Wilson Saunders, F.R.S., F.L.S.,and Worthington G, 
Smith, F.L.S., assisted by A. W. Bennett, M.A., B.Sc., 
F.L.S. Londen large 8vo., tab. lith. pict.24. (London : 
John Van Voorst, 1871.) 
THOSE who have made the longest and most intimate 
study of Fungi are most sensibly alive to the fact that itis 
almost impossible to name species, especially those be- 
longing to the genus Agaricus, without figures derived 
from the authors themselves to whom they are attributable, 
or at least made under their immediate inspection. It 
was therefore a great boon to mycologists wnen Prof. 
Fries, a student of some sixty years’ standing, determined 
to deposit in the museum at Stockholm figures of a large 
portion of those species, described by himself, which have 
a softer texture, and are with difficulty preserved for the 
herbarium ; copies of many of which, and frequently the 
original sketches, have from time to time been kindly 
transmitted to this country, while the illustrations them- 
selves are in the course of publication. Five fasciculi 
have already appeared under the title “Icones selectz 
Hymenomycetorum nondum delineatorum,” containing 
fifty plates, several of which comprise two or more distinct 
kinds ; and it is much to be hoped that increasing years 
_will not prevent the venerable mycologist from continuing 
his indispensable work, supplementing, as it does so nobly, 
the “sveriges atliga och giftiga svampar,” which furnishes 
a hundred plates, of which several are critical species, 
though, from the nature of the publication, the greater 
number are well-known forms. 
We have now before us a work of much importance in 
the same direction, which, though not sanctioned by so 
long a study or such numerous treatises, must ever be of 
considerable weight from the unusual artistic talent of Mr. 
Worthington Smith, to whom, in conjunction with Mr. 
Wilson Saunders, the illustrat ons are due. He has not, 
however, rested entirely on his own knowledge of the 
subject as regards the determination of species, but has 
very wisely obtained help where it was possible to do so. 
In general the species are very correctly determined, but 
we venture to make one or two observations where some 
doubt exists, a matter of no surprise in so very complicated 
a subject. 
Fries has just published a figure of h's 4. polius which 
is very different from that in the work before us, and 
which agrees with what we have ourselves always con- 
sidered that species. Boletus fachypus is certainly not the 
plant of Fries as figured in his work on esculent and 
poisonous fungi. We have noright to criticise A. jumonius, 
as it has the sanction of Fries himself, but we cannot help 
remarking that it does not at all resemble the figure in 
the “Svensk Botanik.” As regards Cortinarii it is most 
desirable that the young state should always be figured. 
Cortinarius caninus, for example, is much brighter in 
colour at first. The figure clearly represents an older 
condition. The least satisfactory figure is that of A. 
hydrophilus, which differs from the usual form in not 
having a fistulose stem. There are some errors, whether 
clerical or otherwise, which call for a stricter revision in 
future numbers of the Latin phrases. 
NATURE 



Thirty species are illustrated in the twenty-four plates, 
the figures for the most part leaving nothing to be desired. 
Far the greater part of them have either not been figured 
before, or the published figures are not satisfactory. We 
may mention as peculiarly good Canthare!/lus 1adicosus, 
Agaricus atro-ceruleus, which reminds us of Gould’s 
drawings of infant coots and waterhens ; A. /ignatilis, and 
Gomphidius glutinosus. We trust that this very useful 
and acceptable work will command such asale as to ensure 
its continuance. The materials in the hands of the 
editors are almost inexhaustible, and are daily increasing. 
Since the above was written, a letter has been received 
from Prof. Fries containing some kindly worded criticisms, 
the most important of which are subjoined. The least 
observation from a person of such wide experience must 
be welcome to every genuine mycologist, and to none, we 
are assured, more so than to the authors of the work before 
us. Cortinarius callisteus= A. ferrugineus Scop., agreeing 
exactly in habit with the plant of Fries but differing in 
colour. A. folius = A. fumosus. Boletus pachypus = B. 
amarus Fr. C. ca@rulescens = C. cumatilis Fr., species 
valde variabilis. He adds, “the price is so moderate that 
it excites my admiration. Your admirable work has been 
received with singular pleasure. It contains three inte- 
resting species quite new to me: Cantharellus radicosus, 
Agaricus adnatus, and Agaricus polystictus.” 
M. J. BERKELEY 


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[Zhe Editer dozs not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his Correspondents. No notice ts taken of anonymous 
communications. | 
Mr. Howorth on Darwinism 
WILL you allow me to reply to the various letters which ap- 
peared in your last number in answer to one from me? I grate- 
fully welcome their general courteousness. Postponing the con- 
sideration of Mr. Wallace’s letter, I come to Dr. Lionel Beale, 
the relevancy of whose arguments, and especially of the lugubrious 
moral attached to them, I fail to understand. ,It seems to me to 
be so incoherent and rhetorical that it is far beyond the reach of 
reply. 
ne Tylor refers to the last census as disproving my position. 
He says the population has increased enormously, and yet our 
age is characterised by its luxury. These statements are correct. 
But the argument deduced from them has a missing link. The 
luxury of the upper strata of society has increased with its wealth, 
but the numbers of the pauper class have been increased in the 
same rate. In considering the published returns of the Peor Law 
Board, I am compelled to admit that the increased luxury has been 
limited to the surface of society, and that its lowest ranks have 
been correspondingly recruited, and to admit the force of Mr. 
Doubleday’s argument, that the population of England under the 
Tudors was stationary because of the generally diffused wealth, 
while that of Ireland in the last century was increasing at an 
enormous rate, because it was steepedin poverty and want. I 
am not arguing about individual cases, but about general laws. 
Now, in Lancashire, where the increase has been so marked, I 
have it on the authority of owners of mills that the indigenous 
stock of the county, which is thrifty and well off, is not an in- 
creasing element, but is being replaced by the children of the 
Irish, or semi-Irish blood, from the poorer quarters of the large 
towns, among whom prudential restraint (which is surely a very 
visionaly cazsa causans in any event) cannot be said to have much 
influence. At Rome, Venice, Basle, and in France, where the 
aristocratic class was not limited by primogeniture, it was always 
dying out, and was only recruited by fresh creations (see the 
details in Doubleday, chapter iv. fassimz). In all these cases we 
can appeal to figures, and not to asuperficial survey of a Peerage, 
or the limited area of our own acquaintance, 
The particular passage quoted by Mr. Tyler from Malthus 
has been conclusively answered by Doubleday (chapter vi.), and 
it is useless to repeat his arguments, which on this point I con- 
sider to be unanswerable. 
Mr. Lownes repeats the odd charge of Mr. Tait against me, 
that I put the cart before the horse. The latter gentleman, whom 

ee eee ee 
