110 
FUNGI EXSICCATI. 
We have received Rabenhorst’s “ Fungi Europaei,” Cent, xxiv., 
and are glad to notice that it maintains its position bv the publication 
of interesting and valuable species. Notwithstanding all the care 
which the energetic editor bestows upon his work, errors will some- 
times creep in unawares, aud we note two or three numbers in the 
present century which require a passing observation. No. 2310, 
under the name of Ehytisma Lagerstrcemice, although sterile, and 
hence nothing can be affirmed of it with certainty, does not appear 
to differ from Ehytisma Pongamice, B. & Br., from Ceylon. No. 
2311, Peziza rujescens is already occupied, so that this name will 
have to give place to Peziza Schroteri. No. 2314, Peziza vinacea, 
Rabh., offers no features distinct from those of Peziza sub hirsuta. 
No. 2315, Ombrophila Kriegeriana, is a very interesting species, 
and is placed in the genus to which it has the closest affinity. 
Peziza bulgarioides, Rabh., has a very similar substance, and is 
doubtless congeneric. No. Pleospora Aleliloti, appears to be 
distinct from Pleospora Niessleana, ,Kze., which occurs also on 
Alelilotus alba. No. 2336, Sphcei'ia Bambusce must certainly be a 
Dothidea. No. 2338, Sphceria Pandani is a curious species from 
India. The brown sporidia are rough when mature, which is not 
indicated in the figure. It is the custom with some mycologists to 
institute a new genus for every form of sporidia. What an admir- 
able chance of tacking his name to a new genus the editor has in 
this instance lost ! No. 2341, Sphcerella Bcehmerice, we find nothing 
but a Phoma. No. 2355, Coniothyrium globuliferum, in our copy, 
is a decided Dothidea in good fruit, which does not appear to differ 
at all from our specimens of Dothidea demersa, Cda. No. 2372, 
Uromyces Mucunce, is the same as we have under the manuscript 
name of Pileolaria asperula, and it appears to us to belong to that 
genus. No. 2375, Uredo Tephrosiee is a Trichobasis. It would 
have been better had the difference been indicated between this and 
Trichobasis fallens, Desm. 
Thumen’s “ Mycotheca Universalis,’' Cent, xi., is also to hand, 
and if more experienced editors do not escape error, this one must 
not be disappointed to find two or three points open to criticism. 
No. 813, Peziza capitata, is no other than Peziza echinulata, Awd. 
No. 846 is probably Alicrosphceria Hedwigii, but we have not 
examined the small specimen. No. 865 is too near European 
Quercicolous S23ecies of Diaporthe for any distinction to be indicated. 
No. 888 certainly cannot be a Sporidesmium according to the 
accepted character of the genus. Apropos of this, the genus 
Rcesleria, described in the same memoir with the foregoing species, 
is clearly untenable, since its type is a Lichen, being a well-known 
species of Coniocybe. 
