72 
BRITISH PYRENOMYCETES. 
28. V. populina, Fckl ., Sacc. Syll. 513. 
On poplar. Terrington, Thirsk. 
29. V. salicina, Pers., Sacc. Syll. 514; HdbJc. 2476. 
On willow. Wey bridge, Irstead, Kidbrooke, &c. 
30. Y. Curreyi, Ntke., Sacc. Syll. 516. 
On dead larch branches. Weybridge, Perth. 
31. y. cypri, Tul, Sacc. Syll. 517. 
On privet. Twycross. 
32. y. pauperata, C. fy E., Sacc. Syll. 525. 
On Cerasus avium. Jedburgh. 
33. y. rhodophila, B. $• Br., Sacc. Syll. 529 ; Edbk. 2479. 
On rose stems. Orton Wood. 
34. y. subseriata, Cooke , Grev. xiv, 47. 
On birch. Shere. 
A NEW GOSPEL OF MYCOPHAGY. 
It is so seldom that scientific books are lively and spirited, dis- 
persing scintillations of wit in all directions, like sparks from a smith’s 
anvil, that when one is met with it is by no means surprising that 
we hasten to make a note of it. Under the title of “ An Elemen- 
tary Text Book of British Fungi,” the traveller in search of the 
curious will find much to interest him. There are fifteen pages of 
figures to illustrate the text, and forty- four pages of figures which 
have nothing whatever to do with the text ; perhaps this is not 
unusual, but it is curious. By a strange fatality they would be in- 
sufficient to illustrate anything satisfactorily, even with the full 
explanation that is missing. It is not so easy to see the joke of 
coining a batch of names, supposed to become the popular names 
of the future for certain edible and poisonous fungi. Agaricus in- 
versus is the “ infamous Clitocybe ” — poor Agaric to be so much 
maligned — but Agaricus phalloides is the “ arch bane,” perhaps out 
of compliment to the “ Archangel,” for the next species is the 
“ Destroying Angel.” Theologians will be glad to learn that the 
name of the “ Destroying Angel ” has been found at last, and that 
it is Agaricus vernus , because it is “ angelically beautiful, and 
demoniacally poisonous.” With less reason Agaricus crustulini- 
formis is baptized anew as “ The snake in the grass,” but why not 
“ The toad in a hole ? ” There are more reptiles yet, for Agaricus 
lacrymabundus is called the “ Crocodile,” because it sheds croco- 
dile’s tears. Oh ! And “ is bowed down with the weight of its 
guilt.” This is a sly insinuation against its slipping wholesale into 
the manufacture of “ trade ketchup.” Then, again, there is the 
11 Yellow Reptile,” which is a translation front Agaricus sulfureus, 
but why not “ Mephistopheles,” from the suggestion of sulphur, save 
out of respect to Mr. Irving, or to the superior qualifications of 
Boletus satanas , which is “ Beelzebub’s cushion.” 
