82 
NOTES ON HYMENOMYCETES. 
By the Editor. 
W e have already alluded, very casually, to Professor Saccardo’s 
fifth volume of his “ Sylloge,” which contains the first part of the 
Hymenomycetes. W e return to it now for the purpose of one or 
two observations, preliminary to our succeeding remarks, rather 
than for criticism. In the first place we congratulate Saccardo in 
not adding the dimensions of the spores (where he gives them) to 
the original diagnoses, except in such cases as those of recently 
described species in which the spore measurements are constituted 
a part of the original diagnosis. A distinct protest must be 
offered to the custom, now so common, of attaching spore dimen- 
sions to a species without any evidence that the spores belong to 
the species originally described, but are only added from specimens 
determined by the parties themselves, and which they fancy, or 
believe to be, the species of some particular author who has not 
given spore measurements. This is altogether a delusion and a 
snare, and such dimensions have no authority whatever, and cannot 
be accepted as positively the spores of the species in question. The 
only good and authentic spore measurements are those given by 
the author himself, or obtained from authentic typical specimens. 
Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones may give the dimensions of the spores 
of Agancus cincinnatus , Fries, for instance, not from authentic 
specimens, but from something collected by himself, and which he 
considers may be the A. cincinnatus of Fries, but also may be 
something quite different. Neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Jones has 
any right to assume that his specimens are so indubitably the 
species of Fries that he is at liberty to amend or add to the 
diagnosis the dimensions of the spores. In order that such spore 
measurements may have due value they should be derived from 
authentic specimens, and the fact stated, otherwise the specimens 
from which the spores are taken should be accurately and satis- 
factorily figured with their spores, and thus some plausible ground 
afforded for the determination. In the next place we must express 
our sympathy with Saccardo in a difficulty in which he was 
placed in carrying out his design of furnishing diagnoses of all 
described species. Of course, he could not act invidiously and 
exclude a long series of new species, however doubtful he might 
feel of their value, although in very many cases the diagnoses are 
so wretchedly imperfect, and the illustrative figures (when given at 
all) so crude and partial, that five per cent, of them will represent 
the most that will ever be recognized again by anyone except the 
author himself. In one instance, which we may particularise, 
there are scores of supposed new species, all by the same hand, 
which it would be impossible to identify, either by the short descrip- 
tions or the wretched figures, or by both of these combined. That 
this was felt by Saccardo will be manifest by his lumping together 
