88 
MODERN MYCOLOGY. 
be henceforth omitted from mycological works ; (2) In the case of 
imperfect descriptions where authentic material exists, emended 
descriptions should be published ; (3) Uniformity in specific 
diagnoses. This could be accomplished by accepting the opinion 
of specialists as to the features of most value in their respective 
groups. 
Finally, during recent years enormous advances have been 
made in our knowledge of the life-history of fungi, and the true 
affinity in many instances demonstrated between forms which 
were previously placed in widely separated genera or even orders. 
This knowledge would have to be taken into consideration in the 
reconstruction of genera; but to what extent? Undoubtedly 
JEcidium berberulis, Credo linearis , and Puccinia graminis would 
be described as phases in the life-cycle of one species ; but on the 
other hand, should all the varied forms of development and 
conidial formation produced by cultures, in what may be termed 
an artificial manner, as in many of the higher fungi, be allowed 
to influence a generic character ? I think not, remembering the 
ease with which very varied results may be produced by sowing 
similar spores or conidia in slightly different nutritive media ; 
such observations, carefully conducted and duly corroborated, are 
of great value in illustrating the elasticity of a given species 
under varied conditions, but it has yet to be proved whether those 
variations indicate affinity, that is whether they occur spon- 
taneously in nature as parts in the normal life-cycle of a species, 
or simply illustrate the possibilities of a species under exceptional 
conditions. 
Systematic mycology, as a means to an end, deals with what we 
for convenience designate genera and species, and accepts as such 
all groups and individuals that retain their individuality at the 
present time ; and to tamper with this idea, by introducing com- 
paratively isolated researches on development under exceptional 
conditions, would defeat the main aim of the systematist. 
MUSCINE.E. 
British Hepatigle.* 
It is somewhat surprising, when we remember the number of 
distinguished British hepaticologists that have been working 
continuously for the past twenty-five years or more, to find that it 
is just over sixty years since the British Hepaticae were last dealt 
with in detail, and even then were included in a general Flora — 
Hooker’s English Flora, Yol. v., 1833. It is true that the 
author of the work under consideration issued since the above 
date a libretto containing brief descriptions, accompanied by out- 
* “ Handbook of British Hepaticae,” by M. C. Cooke, M.A., LL.D., 
A.L.S. London : W. H. Allen and Co. 6s. 
