Nov. 4, 1886] 



NA TURE 



volume omitted some forty species, and the present is by 

 no means perfect. We open at p. 232, and find imder the 

 genus Solcnia one solitary British species recorded, that of 

 Solciiia ocliraaux. Surely our author could not have been 

 ignorant of the fact that Solenia anomala, P., is still more 

 common, and was recorded by Berkeley in the " English 

 Flora" (p. 199) fully fifty years ago. Neither could he 

 have forgotten that another species was included in 

 Cooke's " Hand-book " (p. 329) under the name of .S'. 

 caiuiida, since corrected to S. fasciciilata. As these 

 specimens were collected near Batheaston, by no other 

 than Mr. C. E. Broome, and confirmed by the Rev. M. J. 

 Berkeley, no doubt can be entertained of their being 

 authentic. Furthermore, the name was corrected and 

 the species figured by Berkeley and Broome in the 

 Annals of Natural History, December 1870, No. 1301. 

 The fourth species is Solcnia siipitata, Fuckel, of which 

 there are specimens in the Kew Herbarium. It cannot 

 be conceded that a " Flora" satisfies all reasonable 

 expectations when in one genus only one of four species 

 is recorded. 



Turning to an allied genus, that of Cypltella, we seek in 

 vain for C. Curreyi or C. albo-violascens (which may be 

 identical), C. cyclas, Cke. and Phil., C. punctiformis, Fries, 

 C. villosa, Pers., all but one of which are well-known and 

 widely-distributed species. 



Whether the species under the genera Stcrcum and 

 Corticiutn might have been arranged in a manner more in 

 accordance with modern ideas, and far more useful to the 

 student in their identification, may be left an open ques- 

 tion. Those who are not facile in the use of the micro- 

 scope may find it convenient to follow Fries, who paid 

 little attention to microscopical characters, but surely in 

 a large and difficult genus, such as Corticium, no assist- 

 ance should be despised. 



We observe, with some surprise, the genus Microcera, 

 of Desmazieres, included in a work devoted to British 

 Hymenomycetes (p. 308) with the intimation " no British 

 species.' The fact is that Microcera coccophila, Desm., 

 which is the type of the genus, has been found in Britain, 

 and is recorded on p. 556 of Cooke's " Hand-book," 

 and furthermore it is also true that it is not a Hymeno- 

 mycete at all, but the conidia of one of the Sphceriacei, 

 and is included as such in Saccardo's " Sylloge Fun- 

 gorum" (vol. ii. p. 513). This singular double error 

 might have been avoided had some mycologist been 

 consulted who had not confined his attention exclusively 

 to the Hymenomycetes. 



The limits of species is another open question, and it is 

 scarcely advisable to make too much of the insertion of 

 what some may regard as doubtful species in a " Flora" 

 wherein the author is not free to give reasons in their 

 favour ; nevertheless, we venture to hint that Polyporiis 

 arnwniacus. Berk. (p. 215), is generally admitted to be 

 only a resupinate condition of P. ainorphus, Fries, and 

 should not be continued as a distinct species. P. 

 Herbcrgii, Rost (p. 195), is placed as an ally of P. sul- 

 phiireus in the section "Caseosi," \i\\tre^i P. cteticularis 

 is found (at p. 202) in " Spongiosi." Unfortunately for 

 this arrangement, the two species [P. Herbcrgii and P. 

 cuticularis) are so closely allied that sometimes it is diifl- 

 cult to distinguish the one from the other, except by the 

 difference in size of the pores, and hence some regard 



them as varieties of one species. At any rate, there is 

 no good reason why such closely-allied forms should be 

 separated by four-and-twenty intermediate species. 



The mention of localities for species throughout the 

 work is so vague, that some explanation should have 

 been offered. When only one locality is given, the 

 inference which would be drawn by the majority of 

 readers would be that no other British locality was 

 known at the time for that particular species. That this 

 conclusion would be wrong is manifest from Hydiiuni 

 Weinman)!! (p. 242), which may be taken as an example. 

 The locality cited is " Bristol," but Bristol is not the only, 

 or the most important station for this species in Britain, 

 because it occurs plentifully in the neighbourhood of 

 Carlisle. If the intention was simply to indicate the 

 locality where the species was first found in these islands, 

 then again we fancy it is inaccurate, because, as we 

 believe, it was first discovered by the late Rev. A. 

 Bloxam, at Gopsall, The only solution we could suggest 

 is that " Bristol " is the locality mentioned in Berkeley's 

 "Outlines," and it was accepted as the only authentic 

 record, without inquir}-. Some species are stated to be 

 " common," others " frequent," and others " rare," and 

 when, in the absence of any one of these terms, a single 

 locality is given, it is a fair inference that only one 

 locality was known to our author, and that was the 

 reason why it was given. Assuming this to be the case, 

 we fancy that a very large number of these single locali- 

 ties could be challenged as not unique. 



In addition to a " Glossary" of five pages, we are glad 

 to find a good index of genera and species, but we search 

 in vain for any clue to the contractions, in some cases 

 only a single letter, employed in quoting authorities. 

 Under nearly every species follows a line or two, some- 

 times five or six lines, of hieroglyphics, to which figures 

 are appended. It may be all clear enough to the Rev. 

 John Stevenson what is intended to be conveyed by 

 " Quel. t. 1 1, f. I," or " Viv. t. 27," or " C. Illust., pi. 276," 

 but who these illustrious persons are, or what they have 

 done, to be curtailed in such wise, is nowhere indicated. 

 Surely the author must have determined upon giving a 

 key to these mysteries when he first commenced to em- 

 ploy them, and, in the hurry to issue the second volume, 

 quite forgot the " students," even if he remembered the 

 '■ scholars," and closed the book before he had finished 

 his work. 



A summary of the contents of these volumes, as they 

 stand, exhibits the following results as compared with the 

 last preceding work on the same subject : — 



" Hand-book of British Fungi " ... 104.4 



Stevenson's " British Fungi " 1675 



or, an addition of 631 species of Hymenomycetes since 

 the year 1S71. The majority of the additions have been 

 made in the Agaricini, which stand thus : — 



" Hand-book of British Fungi " ... 699 



Stevenson's " British Fungi " 11S3 



or, an addition of 484 species, leaving only 147 species 

 to be distributed over the residue of the genera of 

 Hymenomycetes. These results are at any rate a justi- 

 fication, if any were needed, for the publication of a new 

 work, especially when the older one is entirelv out of 

 print. 



