[ 49 6 ] 
Thcfe were feledted from a number of others, and,, 
according to him, ferve to illustrate and confirm an 
bypothefis he had adopted, and by which the.exift- 
cnee of feeds, and confequentiy the propagation of 
the Fungi, are rendered doubtful. 
The Fungi, which he has given figures of, and 
which he ules to confirm his opinion, are certainly 
very irregular, and perhaps not eafy to be accounted' 
for. In the three fird of them, more than one Fun- 
mis grows from one common bafe, or Item ; and 
what feems extraordinary to the author is, that part 
of the bafe of one of the Fungi does not touch the 
ground, but reds on the pileus, or cap of the other,, 
and confequentiy cannot receive from the ground 
what is neceifary for its rife, evolution, and nourish- 
ment. I mud own, I do not fee the force of this 
argument ; for why may not one common dem, the 
bottom of which is fixed in the ground, give nounfli- 
ment to each of the Fungi, though part of the dem 
of one reds upon the pileus of the other ? Does not 
common experience prove, that nouridament can be 
conveyed through imperfea branches, even when 
fuch parts as would be judged, at fird fight, to be 
necedary to convey the nutritive pieces are wanting r 
This is the cafe of trees, when all the bark is dript 
off quite round a branch, and- yet that branch diall 
bear dowers and fruit, in great quantity.. 
The fourth figure exhibits two fungi, out of the 
pileus of which grows another complete Fungus, 
with dem, pileus, and lamellae, of the fame kind 
with the lower , one, in every refpett. However ex- 
traordinary this may .be, yet it feems by no means to 
