336 



Mycologia 



any great extent. In the collection of Fungi, 2 which is the only 

 portion I examined, there is occasional confusion of this sort, 

 which, wherever it occurred, was exceedingly vexatious to me, 

 as it effectually prevented the authentication of the species of 

 the several authors. This would not be a very serious evil, if 

 the specimens were always of one species. But where they 

 differ, the evil is irreparable. I fear that a careless haste has 

 had a good deal to do in causing their confusion. But where 

 there is so much to be done, so few to do it, & labor gratuitous, I 

 suppose we cannot expect everything to be done perfectly. 

 Nevertheless, I hope you & others will see that no further con- 

 fusion is made in your large & valuable Herbarium. 



" I promised a critical review of the Fungi of Herb. Schweinitz 

 for your Transactions, & also a collection of fungi. These will 

 be prepared as soon as possible, but it will be some time first. 

 Each will be more complete for delay. Please to wait upon me 

 with all patience. I shall not forget the claims of the Academy 

 upon me for the valuable privileges allowed me last Fall." 



Shortly after the above letter was written " In a letter dated 

 June 2, 1852," according to Miss Wakefield, "he advises the 

 dispatch of nearly 1,500 of these duplicates of his Schweinitzian 

 specimens. At the same time he mentions that he had promised 

 the Philadelphia Academy a critical review, and asks Berkeley to 

 send him his observations, so that the paper could be published 

 in their joint names. 



" Subsequent correspondence deals with the preparation of 

 the two papers, — the one on Surinam fungi, and the ' com- 

 mentary/ 



"Early in 1855 Curtis also sent to Berkeley, for his examina- 

 tion, a parcel of mounted specimens from Herb. Schwein. ('over 

 300, I believe') which were to be returned when done with, as 

 they were such as could not be divided. There is nothing to 

 indicate whether these were all the remaining specimens in Curtis' 

 possession, or only a part. 



2 The few instances in which such confusion occurs in Schweinitz's original 

 packets, so far as the writers have observed, are those in which Schweinitz 

 himself included specimens received from other collectors. 



