SACCARDO’S SYLLOGE. 
61 
ing mycologists. Some omissions will, doubtless, be discovered, 
since we have already failed to trace some of the species described 
in Schweinitz’s “ Synopsis Carolinensis,” but let us hope that the 
omissions are but few. It would be absurd to attempt any 
elaborate criticism of a volume of this character without having 
applied the crucial test of experience. Those who are called upon 
to use it day by day will soon discover all that can be urged against 
it. Altogether, we are strongly of opinion that these two volumes 
(v. and vi.), which contain the Hymenomycetes, will be more used 
and better appreciated than any of those which preceded them. 
About two additional volumes, which are promised for 1889, will 
complete this arduous undertaking, and we congratulate Professor 
Saccardo on his energy and promptitude. One part has already 
appeared since the foregoing paragraph was written. 
YOL VII., PART II. 
This part, which completes the seventh volume, contains some 
400 pages, and is devoted to the Ustiloginece and the Uredinece , 
compiled by Dr. J. B. de Toni. Very little criticism can be offered 
on this part, in which the usual classification prevalent throughout 
the work is continued. There are the Amerosporae, Didymosporse, 
Phragmospora?, and Dictyosporae, and finally a subsidiary group 
of imperfect forms ( Status secundarii ) , but nothing sensational. It 
is strange how an error which, has once got into print becomes per- 
petuated. At p. 768 two species of Milesia are described ; one of 
these is Milesia Polypodii, B. & White, which is the type, and the 
only species in fact. The other is Milesia Polygoni , B. & White, 
which is merely the copy of a misprint in the “ Annals of Natural 
History,” No. 1,709, and really was intended for Milesia Polypodii . 
No. 2,959 , PEcidium incarceratum, B. & Br., is only a synonym 
of Doassansia Sagittarice. 
No. 2,930, PEcidium strobilinum, A. & S., has already appeared 
in Vol. iii. (No. 3,655) as Pleosporopsis strobilinum , (Erst. 
By some oversight Testicularia , Klotsch.,has been omitted from 
the Ustilaginece, to which it is clearly allied, and inserted in Lyco- 
perdacece (Vol. vii., p. 150), with which it has no affinity. 
However, these are merely stray suggestions which have occurred 
to us in casually turning over the pages. The merits and demerits 
of such a work do not appear until tested by experience. At any 
rate this, as well as the kindred volumes, will be indispensable to 
the library of the mycologist, especially when the appendices have 
swept up all the stray species from out-of-the-way places, which 
may have been overlooked and forgotten, notably those of which 
the diagnoses have been issued with the specimens in some exciccati , 
and are not published elsewhere. 
