in point of view as to the taxonomic arrangement of previously 

 known forms ; practically all of the forms described as new have 

 been hitherto absolutely unknown. In the first part of the mono- 

 graph, printed nearly twelve years ago, the number of known 

 species is given as 158, of which 130 were North American and 

 19 were European. No summary is given in the present part, 

 but while North America is still apparently in the lead in the 

 number of recognized species, its overwhelming preponderance 

 has doubtless been relatively reduced by an increased knowledge 

 of the Laboulbeniales of the other parts of the world. Professor 

 Thaxter has twice visited Europe for the purpose of examining 

 collections of insects in London, Oxford, Cambridge, Berlin, and 

 Paris, and many exotic species of Laboulbeniales thus detected 

 are here described and figured. His own extensive collections 

 of these entomophilous fungi in South America in 1905-6 still 

 remain to be described. 



Professor Thaxter devotes a page id refuting Cavara's conten- 

 tion that the Laboulbeniales are essentially saprophytes father 

 than parasites, his conclusion being that although "the growth 

 of these plants is not associated with any appreciable injury to the 

 host, it is nevertheless a true parasitism of a typically obligate 

 type." As to the details of the phylogeny of the group, the 

 author of the monograph modestly and refreshingly " confesses 

 his complete agnosticism in these matters, an agnosticism which 

 embraces the question of the origin of the Ascomycetes as a 

 whole, and the determination of the course of evolution in the 

 entire fungus series." His conclusion as to the taxonomic posi- 

 tion of the group is summed up as follows : " As to the Laboul- 

 beniales, it may be said with safety that they resemble the Flo- 

 rideae in some repects more closely than they do any other plants, 

 while at the same time they are more surely Ascomycetes than 

 many forms included in this group, and the writer sees no suffi- 

 cient reason why they should not be placed in the Pyrenomy- 

 cetes, as a group coordinate with the Perisporiales, Hypo- 

 creales, etc." 



A slight bibliographical defect in Professor Thaxter's mono- 

 graph is the fact that the contribution which now, apparently, we 



