= NAIR RF: 
o7 
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1886 
BRITISH FUNGI 
Hymenomycetes Britannici—Bkritish Fungi (Hymeno- 
mycetes). By Rev. John Stevenson, Author of “ Myco- 
logia Scotica.” Vol. I. Agaricus—Bolbitius. 8vo, pp. 
372, with Cuts. (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and 
Sons, 1886.) 
QUARTER of a century ago, the number of per- 
sons in this country who made any pretence to 
study the fungi might have been counted on the fingers, 
and almost on the fingers of one hand. At that time 
Berkeley’s “ Outlines of British Fungology” had just 
appeared, but with it came no visible evidence of an 
increased number of students. An unfortunate desire to 
limit the volume to a definite size and price acted in- 
juriously upon its contents. Half the bock was a mere 
list of names without descriptions, and in the other half 
the descriptions were reduced to short diagnoses, quite 
insufficient except for those who were somewhat expert in 
the study. The young student struggling to get some 
knowledge of these obscure plants had no alternative but 
to fall back on the supplementary volume of Hooker’s 
“English Flora” for the information he needed, oftentimes 
with much disappointment. Hence it is not surprising 
that only a few had the courage to persevere in a study 
for which there was no adequate text-book. It was not 
until 1871 that Cooke’s “ Hand-book of British Fungi” 
supplied what was required, and imparted a stimulus to 
the pursuit of that section of British botany, which has 
gradually increased in force, until at the expiration of 
another fifteen years, the “ Hand-book” is out of print, 
and out of date, with a greatly augmented body of 
students looking anxiously for a new edition, or an 
entirely new work. 
At this crisis, and under these circumstances, the work 
now before us has made its appearance, opportunely, and 
it is to be hoped satisfactorily, to filla vacant place. No 
apology is offered, and none is required, where there is 
no rivalry, and a manifest necessity has been created by 
the flux of time. If the new work fulfils all the conditions 
of such a “ Hand-book” of mycology as the student would 
require, there is a good and valid case in its favour. It 
must be conceded that although his previous “ Mycologia 
Scotica ” was little more than a localised catalogue, there 
was every reason to believe that the Rev. John Stevenson 
would bring practical experience and literary ability to 
his task, and acquit himself well in the production of a 
more elaborate work. In the result his friends have no 
reason to be disappointed. He has laboured conscien- 
tiously, and although in some things we do not agree with 
him, has accomplished a useful task. 
It is hinted in the preface, although not clearly stated, 
what is the character of the book, namely, that it is prac- 
tically a translation of Fries’s “ Monographia” in so far 
as the British species are concerned. There is no doubt 
that this was the best course to adopt, because there can 
be no two opinions of the value of Fries’s observations, 
and the book in which they are written is very rare, and 
beyond the reach of the ordinary student. Still it would 
VOL. XXXIV.—No. 866 
have been better not to have left this point in suspense, 
since a long detailed description which can be attributed 
without reservation to Fries is of infinitely more value 
than the most careful compilation would be. Unfor- 
tunately, any one who opens the book to consult it for 
the first time will at once conclude that the descriptions 
are the original production of the author, whose name 
appears on the title-page. We do not for a moment 
imagine that there was any desire to appropriate whole- 
sale and take credit for the product of another man’s 
brains, but unfortunately that zs done sometimes in 
scientific books, and an honest author should be above 
suspicion. 
Of the type, paper, and general appearance of the work, 
including the woodcuts by Mr. Worthington Smith, we 
have nothing to say except in strong commendation. 
But we cannot help quoting one sentence from the 
preface, which at least is original—“ The tendency in 
recent years has been to multiply species unnecessarily, 
and ultimately many so-called species must disappear. 
The pruning-knife must be unsparingly used ; but this 
must be the work of a Congress of Cryptogamic Botanists, 
not of individual authors.” This quotation is made 
without intention of dissenting from it, but as a prelude 
to a statement of the fact that in the present volume two 
sub-genera and about fifty species (good, bad, or indif- 
ferent) which have been recorded as British, some on the 
authority of the Rev. M. J. Berkeley, and many of them 
figured, are entirely excluded without comment or 
apology. Was this “the work of a Congress of Crypto- 
gamic Botanists or of an individual author?” 
Some writers, and compilers, of the present day exer- 
cise a questionable originality in the correction, or altera- 
tion, of the orthography of generic names which have 
been in use for, perhaps, half a century. No useful 
purpose is served, except the gratification of personal 
vanity, and the multiplication of synonymy. We note, 
on p. 304, an instance of this kind, where Psad/io¢a is 
written Psalota. Without inquiring which is most accu- 
rate, or most elegant, surely its uniform use by Fries, in 
the previous form, since 1821, should have been sufficient 
to protect it from the “ pruning-knife,” and given it some 
title to usage in perpetuity. To such manipulators of 
names we would commend the following sentence from 
De Candolle’s Commentary on the Laws of Botanical 
Nomenclature :—“In these kinds of questions, it must 
be borne in mind that the fixity of names is of superior 
importance.” 
We observe also two or three instances in which the 
orthography of specific names has undergone a change, 
but as it is just possible that these may be referred to 
typographical errors, and not to any intentional mutila- 
tion, we will accord the author the benefit of the doubt. 
Some apology is made in the preface for a departure 
in the present work from the ordinary method of giving 
first a short diagnosis of the species, and afterwards a 
detailed description. “I am aware,” it says, “that the 
departure from this method will touch existing prejudice ; 
but it seems desirable to avoid repetition, to the extent of 
one-third, or one-half, in the account of each species, and 
thereby to secure space for fuller description. Moreover 
the diagnosis is not lost. From the arrangement which 
is adopted in printing, the student, if he is a student at 
F 
