AOARICCS GIGANTEUS AND A. MAXIMUS. 
45 
Sowerby’s figure, and to include the Ag. infundibuliformis, var. 
maximus , of Fries Elenchus, p. 13. It only needs a reference to 
the literature of the subject to discover that the two names 
giganteus and maximus are intricately mixed up, at least, prior to 
1865, and we must take leave to doubt whether the long explana- 
tory note given by Stevenson (Vol. n., p. 66) under Paxillus 
giganteus , can be wholly applicable to that species, and not indis- 
criminately to both, for the quotation is from Berkeley, and was 
written in 1836, or nearly thirty years before he had recognized a 
distinction between Ag. maximus and Ag. giganteus. 
Buxbaum’s figure (Cent iv., PI. 1), the only one quoted by Fries 
under Ag. maximus , although rough, represents the habit of Ag. 
maximus as we have interpreted it in “ Illustrations,” Plate 135, 
on a considerably reduced scale. 
MASSEE ON MUCORS* 
Asa natural consequence of the rapid increase in the number of 
genera and species of the British Fungi it has become necessary 
to prepare and issue “Handbooks” for various smaller groups, 
instead of, as of old, attempting works which would include the 
whole range of British Fungi. What such an universal hand- 
book would have to be now it is almost fearful to contemplate, 
certainly the cost would be beyond the means of the ordinary 
student, and, as no publishers would undertake it, the author would 
have to be the victim of his own zeal. Besides this, students them- 
selves shrink from any attempt to grasp the whole subject, content- 
ing themselves with small and well defined groups, within their 
power of investigation. To such persons large and cumbersome 
books would be a nuisance, including, as they must do, a very large 
proportion in which they have no abiding interest. No apology, 
therefore, is needed for the production of such volumes as Phillips’ 
“ Discomycetes of Britain,” Plowright’s “ British Uredineas,” 
Grove’s “ British Schizomycetes,” Cooke's “ Myxomycetes of Great 
Britain,” and now of Massee’s “ Phvcomycetes and Ustilagineae.” 
The latter work is introduced by a short preface which declares 
that “ the object of the present book is to bring up to date the 
British species of Fungi included in the divisions known as the 
Phycomycetes and the Ustilaginece. Many species, and even genera, 
belonging to the first named division are new to our flora, and 
careful search will undoubtedly reveal more new forms. The great 
interest in connection with such fungi, however, is not so much the 
discovery of new species as a careful investigation into the life- 
history of forms already known. When this is done, and not 
before, it will be possible to speak of genera and species from a 
* “ British Fungi, Phycomycetes and Ustilagineae,” by George Massee. 
Eight plates. L. Reeve and Co. 
