REVIEWS. 
187 
A MYCOLOGICAL REVIEW.* 
I T is a question that must of necessity force itself upon the mind of nearly 
every naturalist, whether we are not getting overdone with periodical 
literature. Every little Philosophical Society that exists all over Europe 
publishes its contribution to the literature of science, and although most of 
the articles contained in these almost inaccessible serials are commonplace 
enough, still, from time to time, they contain the results of sound original 
observations with which it is of importance that all students of the subject 
treated of should be acquainted. In other cases we have local Natural History 
journals brought out, either by individuals who find a pleasure in editorial 
work (!), or by a combination of local societies, and these are in precisely 
the same position as the former. We cannot help thinking that this 
indefinite multiplication of serial publications, in any one of which a valuable 
paper may be buried without the least chance of being generally known to 
those interested in it, is a great misfortune, as it involves a totally unne- 
cessary widening of the literary field which the naturalist must explore, and 
which is wide enough in all conscience without these additions. 
A similar objection may perhaps be raised against the production of 
journals, transactions, and other serial works intended specially for the 
reception of papers upon some particular class or order of plants or animals ; 
but, although these have, to a certain extent, the same effect of multiplying 
the receptacles which the student must search through in order to acquaint 
himself with what has been done, they, nevertheless, in their very title tell 
him what he may, or rather, what he need not, expect to find ; and for those 
who devote themselves more particularly to one department of Natural 
History, it must be confessed that they present a great advantage. Further, 
by notices of new publications, and abstracts of papers published in other 
more general journals, they furnish the specialist with a reflection of what is 
going on elsewhere in his favourite pursuit, and enable him, if he chooses, to 
procure all the best literature relating to it. 
For these reasons, we welcome the appearance of the first number of a 
quarterly “ Revue Mycologique,” edited at Toulouse by M. 0. Roumeguere, 
and can only hope that its existence may not be typified by that of the 
plants whose history and peculiarities it is intended to record. At the same 
time we cannot help feeling that the editor’s undertaking is at least as 
“ courageous ” as those of the gentlemen who have started the u Revue 
Brvologique ” and 11 Revue d’Algologie,” to which he refers in his opening 
address to his readers. 
This first number contains several articles by the editor — one in opposition 
to the notion that Lichens are Fungi parasitic upon Algse, another on an 
extraordinary development of Bovista gigantea near Toulouse, a third on 
the origin of the genus Microsphceria , a fourth on the preservation of Fungi ? 
and a fifth on Telephorci palmata, forma paradoxa. We also find a decade 
of new Exotic Fungi described by M. F. von Thiimen ; an article on the 
* “ Revue Mycologique, Recueil trimestriel illustr^, consacre a l’etude des 
Champignons.” Dirig6e par M. C. Roumeguere. Ire Ann6e, No. 1. 8vo. 
Toulouse, 37 Rue Riguet, et Paris, J. B. Bailliere. January 1879. 
