MOONWORT IN WHARFEDALE. 249 
1892. ‘I have collected it in or received it from several other parts 
of the country as we 
Since the fveveing was sent to press I have received from 
Dr. Rosa specimens of the Italian worm upon which his description 
is based, and find that our British species corresponds in every 
essential with the type. I should like once more to se a to 
naturalists for collections of worms, especially from mountainous 
districts. They should be placed in tin boxes lightly =. il soft 
moss, and accompanied by any data likely to be of servic 
NOTE—BOTANY. 
hard tee um Lunaria in Wharfe seo —I should like to point out that 
This fact I communicated to Mr. Lees, and he i ublished it with other notes on 
his * Flora,’ in ‘ Naturalist’ of Oct. 1 T. B. Woodd also records 
seo ‘ychium mcr ig at Ough ae ge in his ees entitled ‘Plants of Lang- 
othdale,’ which was published in the ‘Naturalist’ of September 1889. 
WW. . SHUFF FREY, wAmndliffe, Skipton, July 18th, 1892. 
Moonwort only appears for a short time, and is very easily overlooked amongst 
the grass, —J.G.B. 
BRITISH FUNGI. 
British Fungi: tg scent a and Ustilagines, pp. xv. ex 8 plates, 
with 137 figures. By G. Masser. London: Lovell Reeve & C 
Tuts book brings the British species of these two groups (so far 
as they have been investigated) up to date; it is well printed, and 
the plates are excellent. ‘There is a capital ‘general introduction,’ 
which occupies almost one-third of the volume; it is full of such 
interest that when the end is reached, one wishes it had been even 
longer. A fungus is first of all well defined in detail, and, as the 
the author says, they may be distinguished as ‘Cryptogams without 
chlorophyll,’ excluding, of course, the Bacteria and Myxogastres, 
which have been divorced from the fungi for some time. Such 
points as veh Orientation of the gelatinous substance of the Z7eme/- 
finee and sclerotia are luc idly explained; the well-known resem- 
blance of Safrolegnia to the chlorophytiose alga Vaucheria is well 
portrayed. The importance of a biological knowledge of the 
plants is strongly urged, as it alone ‘ indicates the required evidence 
for a satisfactory solution of the affinities between the various 
sections’; no less is it impressed that a ‘clear knowledge of the 
Structure or morphology of fungi is indispensable as a preliminary to 
their study from the systematic standpoint.’ (Advice of this kind 
ought to be taken to heart by some of our would- be phanerogamists, 
August 1892. 
