118 
VINE DISEASES. 
of the second series are Phoma Vitis, Bon., it may be doubted 
\Yhether the former is a good Phoma, being distinguished from the 
latter by having sausage-shaped spores. This feature seems 
rather to point to Aposphoeria. That, however, is a subject of 
minor importance, since undoubtedly in both instances we have 
only to deal with a stylosporous condition of some species of 
Sphceria not yet identified. Dr. Pirotta describes, under the name 
of Lasiosphoeria Cookei, a species of Sphceria which was found 
growing in company with Phoma Vitis, Bon., on the specimen 
issued in the second series of “ Fungi Britannici,” and it is not at 
,all improbable that this may hereafter be traced to Phoma Vitis, 
Bon., as the complete, ascigerous. condition of that Phoma. It is 
singular that all the specimens of Phoma Vitis issued in both series 
of “ Fungi Britannici” were collected by our friend Plowright in the 
neighbourhood of King’s Lynn, and it is to his quick and ready 
eyes that we must trust for finding again the species of Sphceria in 
company with the Phoma. Since the publication of the works now 
under notice, we have examined some specimens of Phoma on Vine 
found at Hampstead, which had been referred to Phoma Vitis, and 
found them correspond with Phoma Cookei, Pir., in the curved 
linear spores ; whereas in Phoma Vitis, Bon., the spores are of the 
usual Phoma type — that is, narrowly elliptical, straight, containing 
at the first two nuclei. 
There is much reason for condemning the practice of misappro- 
priation, which although not meeting with the punishment which 
civilised communities inflict on social offenders, is nevertheless un- 
worthy of praise. Corticium alhido-carneum, Thiim. (p. 70), should 
have been C. albido -carneum, Curtis, for which see Curtis’s Cata- 
logue (1876), page 107. Corticium armeniacum, Thiim., has no 
claim for acceptance instead of Cort. molle, B. & C., because 
although there is a Cort. molle. Fries, which has priority, there is 
also a prior name for Cort. moUe, B. & C., since specimens were 
published by Ravenel in his ‘‘Fungi Caroliniana” (1852), as 
Corticium ceraceum, B. & Rav. (Cent, iii.. No. 29). There is very 
doubtful propriety in employing Propolis prominula, Thiim., 
instead of Stictis prominula, Schw., for a species which he had evi- 
dently never seen, or he would have supplied the description of the 
fructification. Hendersonia viticola, Thiim. (p. 145), is an altera- 
tion from Hendersonia vitis sylvatica, Pirotta, confessedly because 
he did not approve the compound name, forgetting that the reason 
w\as insufficient. Phyllosticta viticola, Thiim. (188), as an emenda- 
tion of Septoria viticola, B. & Curt., is certainly an error ; for 
according to specimens from the late Dr. Curtis, the Septoria 
viticola, B. & C., has globose spores and is a Sacidium, to which 
■we have applied the name of Sacidium viticolum, in papers read at 
the Horticultural Society, and in course of publication in their 
J(Airnal. Specimens are published in “ RaveneTs Fungi Ameri- 
cana” (Cent. i.). 
This reminds us of the omissions observed, in looking over the 
