282 



Fungus Flora of Yorkshire. 



At the foray held at Helmsley in 1903 the Committee decided to 

 proceed with the work at once, which has resulted in the excel- 

 lent volume now before us — ^the first independent fung-us flora 

 issued for any county. 



An idea of the nature and extent of the records may be 

 obtained from the fact that the present volume contains 

 particulars of 2,626 species, compiled from 16,700 records, 

 arranged under the five vice-county divisions of H. C. Watson. 

 Yorkshire consequently includes in its area considerably more 

 than half of the species of fungi recorded for Great Britain. 



The Flora is not a bare list of the species occurring in 

 the county. In addition to the localities in which they have 

 been found, particulars are given in numerous instances of the 

 host plant in the case of parasitic species ; and the habitat of 

 saprophytes is almost invariably appended. Often special 

 characteristics possessed by the fungus are noted. Nor has the 

 economic side been overlooked, numerous and extensive notes 

 on the ravages of destructive parasitic species are given. The 

 word ' edible ' is added in most cases where the fungus is known 

 to possess esculent properties. A table on page 8 summarises 

 the genera and species included in the Flora ; also the number 

 of species thus far recorded for each vice-county. Appendices 

 I. and II. bring the work up to date of publication. In this way 

 the book is economically of much value. 



Apparently the publication of the 'Yorkshire Fungus Flora' 

 by no means infers a cessation of the work of the Mycological 

 Committee. We learn from the introduction that 'many new 

 county, and a few new British, records are added each year. 

 Increased interest is being taken in this branch of botany, and 

 the accumulation of new records is constant. Seeing that such 

 a vast proportion of the county remains to be thoroughly 

 investigated, there is plenty of scope for new discoveries. W^hat 

 is possible in this direction may be gathered by referring to the 

 Scarborough and Hebden Bridge records, in comparison to all 

 others. The fact is here made clear that paucity of records for 

 any given district implies lack of investigation rather than 

 absence of fungi.' 



In congratulating the Union upon the excellent piece of 

 work it has published, special praise should be given to the 

 authors for the thorough manner in which they have done their 

 work. The printing, paper, and general ' get up ' of the volume 

 are all that can be desired. 



Naturalist, 



