147 
VINE DISEASES. 
Two elaborate monographs on this subject have been recently 
published, one in Italy* and the other in Austria ;j’ the former 
containing an enumeration of 104 species and the latter of 224 
species. Both of them are very useful works, and exhibit some 
care and perseverance in their production. On the whole they 
deserve commendation, although not entirely free from error. The 
latter is the largest, the latest, and the most pretentious work, and 
that we have been requested to criticise in the pages of this 
Journal. Some of our observations on species will, however, apply 
to both works. 
It may seem surprising that Baron Thiiemen should, in a work 
at once succeeding that of Dr. Pirotta, furnish more than twice as 
many species ; but we rather congratulate the latter that he has 
not been stimulated by the desire to make a big book, so that he 
has not fallen into the absurdity of classing with Vine diseases a 
number of Fungi which are either common to all kinds of decaying 
vegetable matter, or only exceptionally developed on the Vine. No 
one would expect to find among Vine diseases, or Fungi of the 
Vine, such species as Agaricus melleus, Vahl., Auricularia mesente- 
rica, Pers., C or ticium calceum, Fr., Cyphella villosa, Karst., Cyphella 
alboviolascens, K., Merulius corium, Fr., Polyporus vaporarius, Fr., 
Lycoperdon giganteum, Batsch., Mucor stolonifer, Ehr., Acrostal- 
agmus cinnabarinus, Corda., Aspergillus glaucus, Link., Clado- 
sporium herbarum, Link., Trichothecium roseum. Link., Eurotium 
herbariorum. Link., and a host of others which could have been 
added only for the purpose of book making. After these examples 
it may be imagined how it has occurred that one work contains 
double the number of species of the other, and it may be judged 
how far the greater is an improvement on the less. 
There are, however, errors of a more serious nature which should 
be corrected in a future edition of the Austrian work. We have 
elsewhere stated, on the authority of one of our best Lichenolo- 
gists, that the type of Thiiemen’s new genus Rcesleria is a Lichen, 
and that as his species Rcesleria hypogcea is Coniocybe pallida, Fr., 
it should have had no place amongst Fungi It has also been 
pointed out more than once, both by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley and 
ourselves, that Peziza pruinata, ISchw., is also a Lichen (^Arthonia 
confluens'), and should not have been included (p. 81). 
Cladosporium fumago, Lk., is included (at p. 22), but not the 
perfect condition Capnodium elongatum, B. & D., which has occurred 
in North America, if it has not been detected in Europe. 
As to the two species of Phoma confounded under the name of 
Phoma vitis. Bon., of which the specimens issued in the first series 
of “ Fungi Britannici ” are named Phoma Cookei, Pir., whilst those 
* “ Fnnghi Parassiti dei Vitigni,” del Dr. Eomueldo Pirotta (Milan, 1877). 
t “Die Pilze des Weinstockes,’’ von Felix von Thuemen (Vienna, 1878). 
