SUCCARDO’S SYLLOGE FUNGORUM. 
OK 
60 
we had feared might be the case. We do not suppose that Pro- 
fessor Saccardo has equal faith in all the species that he has intro- 
duced, but it is well that he has not excluded all those which he 
held in doubt, but left this to the judgment of those who might 
use his volumes. The great desideratum was to bring all the 
scattered species together into one work for ready reference, this 
having been done, we do not feel justified in criticising too rigidly 
the classification adopted, although it is more artificial than we 
should have liked. 
The Perisporiacese, and the first part of the Sphaeriaceae, are in- 
cluded in the volume before us, and to this we shall hereafter re- 
turn to offer some observations on the details, which time and space 
does not permit us to enter upon now. 
The “ getting up ” leaves nothing to be desired, as the type is 
clear and legible, and the descriptions are numbered on one side 
consecutively in each genus, and on the other side consecutively 
through the work, so that reference and quotation is rendered 
easy. It is to be hoped that an exhaustive Index will accompany 
the next volume, as the absence of such an Index is the greatest, 
and almost only practical deficiency in the first volume. We 
heartily wish the learned Professor health, patience, and per- 
severance to bring his labours in due time to a close. 
M. C. Cooke. 
THE PERISPORIACEiE OF SACCARDO’S SYLLOGE 
FUNGORUM. 
It is worthy of note that the artificial arrangement, according to 
the spores, is not adopted by Saccardo in the Perisporiacece, or, at 
least, in a very subsidiary manner. This seems to indicate a 
manifest admission of the defect of the system, or that the 
originator had no faith in his own doctrine. This proposed 
system has been vauntingly termed a “ carpological arrangement,” 
but this is evidently a false application of terms, since it is only 
“ spermological,” which is a very different thing from “carpolo- 
gical.” If it had been carpological it would have taken into 
account the entire fructification, and not the seeds, ovules, or spores 
alone. It cannot be contested that a system, such as that adopted 
for the Sphaeriaceae is artificial , pure and simple, equivalent to the 
old Linnean system of counting the stamens. Hence, it is a 
reversion from the natural arrangement proposed by Fries, and is 
analogous to going back to the Linnean system. There can be 
but one opinion now a days that the Natural system is an advance 
upon the Artificial — as applied to the Phanerogamia. It must 
be proved that the natural system cannot be applied to Cryto- 
gamia or, if not, we are fully entitled to protest against going 
backwards in classification. Of course it will be expected that a 
new system will obtain adherents, because love of novelty will 
ensure that, but, to suppose that it will be permanent , will argue 
all lack of faith in the progress of the human mind. Inasmuch as 
