MODERN MYCOLOGY. 
31 
. — being spore measurements. Bresadola,* on the other hand, in 
his bulky work on the Hymenomycetes, makes the spore the one 
crucial feature in a specific diagnosis, all other characters being 
treated in a very superficial manner. The illustrations, too, in the 
last-named work are very novel ; the fact of their occurrences in a 
mycological work suggests that they are intended to represent 
fungi, otherwise in many instances there is no obvious reason for 
supposing this to be so. In the case of old authors dealing with 
micro-fungi, their diagnoses were incomplete from no fault of their 
own, but at the present day, whatever opinion is entertained as to 
the relative value of certain features, which could be emphasized by 
italics, it would be wise to carefully describe all the structural fea- 
tures possessed by a given species, the leading idea being that the 
.specific character should enable the species to be recognized by any 
mycologist, and not only intelligible to a favoured few, who pre- 
sumably have reached what may be termed the scientific astral 
plane of one particular clique. Most mycologists are undoubtedly 
ready to admit that hundreds of book-species do not exist in 
nature ; also that there is a considerable duplication of names and 
general mixing up and confusion of species in almost every group 
of fungi, brought about by the reasons indicated above, also others, 
and it is becoming more and more obvious day by day that the 
present state of things cannot go on for ever, but that sooner or 
later the bull must be taken by the horns. We must endeavour as 
far as possible to redeem the study of mycology from its present 
corrupt condition, and place it on a sound basis. This, however, 
can only be the outcome of combination and of proceeding in a 
methodical manner. Bearing on imperfect description of species, the 
following ideas could be carried out : — (a) Careful new descriptions 
from the present stand-point of knowledge of all existing type- 
specimens, both ancient and modern, if it is felt that any points of 
importance have been omitted in the original diagnosis ; ( b ) The 
discarding of all old names where the description is admittedly too 
meagre and imperfect for recognizing the species with certainty 
and no type-specimen exists ; this will be considered as a cruel sug- 
gestion to a limited few mycologists, whose mixture of egotism and 
vanity prompts them to believe that they know in every instance 
exactly what species the old authors had in view ; ( c ) let all future 
descriptions so thoroughly cover the species intended that under 
ordinary circumstances no doubt could be entertained as to the 
species the founder had in view. 
(4.) The effects of Saccardo’s stupendous workf are apparent 
in all recent works on mycology, and perhaps to the greatest 
extent in extra European countries. As indicated by the title, 
this work is supposed to contain a description of every known 
fungus up to the date of issue, and taking into consideration the 
great difficulties to be met in an endeavour to sweep up the 
* “ Hymenomyceten aus Sudbayern.” 
t “ Sylloge Fungorum omnium hucusque cognitorum,” (1882—1892). 
