414 Cooke: Genera and Speeies in Fungi. 



now treated with undue suspicion, such as perhaps also adheres 

 to the more recent announcements of forms which have been 

 met with but once or twice in a generation, and then all, except 

 perhaps the names, have passed into oblivion. 



Surely there is some interest in these ' missing links ' when 

 regarded in connection with the hypothesis which I have at- 

 tempted, imperfectly, to illustrate ; and one of the most useful 

 occupations for the field hunter of the present day would be, 

 not so much to hunt for new species, as to recognise the manifold 

 links which unite the old ones. 



The latest confirmation of these views will be found in W. G. 

 Smith's ' Synopsis of the Basidiomycetes ' (page 2) — ' The 

 Basidiomycetes are highly plastic and variable. No one species 

 is constant in all its characters, and. a single example seldom 

 wholly agrees with any other single example of the same species. 

 Examples which appear to be intermediate between allied and 

 sometimes between not allied species, are frequently met with, 

 About one species in ten is perhaps fairly well and distinctly 

 marked, but all species will at times present aberrant characters. 

 Any one character is liable to fail in the determination of species, 

 therefore all the characters must be studied together.' 



And in a letter from the same authority, he states : — ' There 

 is a striking instance in Paxillus porosus (Berk.). I had a 

 drawing of this species unnamed for years ! I kept it with 

 Boletus. It has as much claim to a place in the latter genus 

 as in the former. The hymenium is wholly porous.' 



In this connection I cannot forget the constant warning of 

 the late Rev. M. J. Berkeley against long descriptions of species 

 to which many modern authors were addicted. ' Any good 

 description," he said, ' can be contained in three lines, and 

 exceeding that it is but the picture of an individual.' And he 

 w^as accustomed to quote the custom of old authors, and espec- 

 ially of Linnaeus. Because, as he observed, the description of 

 a species should contain the features which distinguish it from 

 allied species, and no more, all other features are merely the 

 variations of individuals, just as a sandy-haired man with blue 

 eyes differs from a black-haired man with brown eyes, or a 

 black pig from a white one. He justly observed, that a com- 

 petent mycologist would distinguish at once the salient features 

 which characterized one species from another, and did not 

 require many words to write it down. Nor need he ever hesitate 

 for a specific name whilst he kept this feature in view. Fancy 

 and comphmentary specific names he regarded as simply 

 evidence of incompetence, or idleness in the person using them. 



Naturalist 



