bewildering nature of the “ambiguous trametes ” is exemplified by treating 
it as Trametes in the text, and as Daedalea in the accompanying figure — 
all without a word of explanation. This is the more remarkable in view 
of the absence of any treatment (other than this brief obscure mention of 
a single species) of the common genera Trametes , Daedalea , and Lenzites , 
and is one of the many indications that might be cited that the book has 
been hurried to publication before all the matter that properly belongs in 
such a popular exposition of the more important genera was assembled. 
To insist on the absence of a definite plan in the book, other than that 
of getting a certain amount of available material between two covers and 
thus catching the market, would perhaps be unjust in view of what is told 
us in the introduction, where the author says : 
“ Since the issue of my ‘ Studies and Illustrations of Mushrooms,’ 
... . there have been so many inquiries for them and for literature dealing 
with a larger number of species, it seemed desirable to publish in book 
form a selection from the number of illustrations of these plants which I 
have accumulated during the past six or seven years.” 
Yet, by the author’s own admission, the contents of the book are to 
some extent the result of accident. In this respect the book compares 
unfavorably with Cooke’s well known “British Edible Fungi,” which 
selects a few conspicuous species, or even with Mr. Mcllvaine’s tome, 
which attempts to include all American fungi known to be edible. 
Passing from general considerations to the criticism of certain details, 
such as the spelling of generic and specific names, we find too many ex¬ 
amples of unscholarly oversight and error. Some instances of careless¬ 
ness in the proof reading are conspicuous, as^ENTOMOLA p. 143, and again 
on p. 144 ; fuligineus, hygrophanus (as English words^) p. 266. Other 
errors can hardly be set down to the same cause, particularly when the 
inaccuracies of the text are accurately reproduced in the legends of the 
plates and in the index. The following may be cited : Amanita caesaria 
(caesarea), p. iv, and pi. 19 ; Hebeloma crustinuliforme (— tulin — ), p. 
158 and fig. 148; Piute us tomentosulsus (—ulus) p. 139, 140; Boletus 
luridis (— us), p. 249 (three times) ; Annelaria (Anellaria) p. 265. And 
furthermore what is to be thought of the following ?— Tricholoma auran- 
tia , p. 86, Calostoma cinnabarina , p. 212, 213, and pi. 72. Yet we find the 
author on page 168 holding up his hands (if that be the interpretation of 
his exclamation point) at Mr. Lloyd’s “ Flammula rkodoxanikusl ” 
Of minor importance, yet perhaps worth a comment, is the inconsistency 
shown in retaining Vittadini’s original spelling rachodes in ( Lefiota 
rhacodes ) while changing Fries’s pargamentis (in Polystictus pergamentis). 
Is it not better to spell rhacodes correctly ? 
Nine “ new species ” are described and illustrated: AmanitaJloccoceph- 
ala , A. velatipes , A. cothurnata , Lepiota asperula , Mycena cyaiiothrix, 
Hypholoma rugocephalum , Bolbitius variicolor , Paxillus corrugatus , and 
Hydnum putidum. Of certain of these a fuller discussion would be wel- 
come. Amanita jioccocephala, for instance, does not stand out clearly 
from A. phalloides ; A. cothurnata , suggests Peck’s A. crenulata, both in 
description and figures; Mycena cyanothrix seems too close to M. cy a neo¬ 
basis Peck, which is admittedly near M. calorhiza Bres., a species identi¬ 
fied by some with M. Iris Berk. ; yet there is nothing to show that the 
older species were studied in connection with the forms proposed as new. 
To the great and increasing number of people who want information 
about our mushrooms Mr. Atkinson’s “ Studies” will be as helpful as any 
single book obtainable. It is certainly the best collection yet published 
of illustrations of our species. 
