natum, Marastnius Oreades.—SUSAN TUCKER, WASH. Bovista 
plumbea.—F. J. TYLER, VA. Mitremyces Berkeleyii?.— Mrs. A. 
R. WARNER, N. H. Bovista pila.—H. E. WARNER, MASS. 
Lycoperdon (species), Geaster hygrometricus, Bovista plumbea, Thele- 
phora, Scleroderma verrucosum, S. Geaster. —L. H. WATSON, ILL. 
Geaster hygrometricus, Lycoperdon caepeforme, L- pulcherrimum, L. 
pyriforme, L. (several species), Lycogala epidendrum.— G. W. WEB¬ 
STER, FLA. Lycoperdon cruciatum, L. (species). —L. E. WELD, 
MICH. Lycoperdon (three species). L. pedicellatum, L. gemmatum, 
L. Curtisii?, Scleroderma verrucosum, S. bovista, Secotium acumina¬ 
tum?, Calvatia cyathiformis, Bovista pila.—MARY S. WHETSTONE, 
MINN. Scleroderma vulgare, Lycoperdon pulcherrimum, L. (species), 
Geaster saccatus, G. limbatus, G. triplex, Calvatia cyathiformis.— 
HOLLOS WEBSTER, N. H. Lycoperdon gemmatum, L. (species)— 
WISCONSIN MYC. CLUB, WISC. Lycoperdon elongatum, L. cru¬ 
ciatum, L. gemmatum, L caepeforme?, L. pyriforme, L. (species), 
Lycogala epidendrum, Geaster Schmidelii, G. rufescens, Bovista plum¬ 
bea, Scleroderma vulgare.—F. K. VREELAND, ME. Lycoperdon 
muscorum, L. (several species), L- pyriforme, Bovista pila.—L- G- 
YATES, CAL- Battarea Digueti, Scleroderma? (new to me, surely 
none of the common species. It looks like Polysaccum crassipes but 
peridioles seem fragile).—T.YOSHINAGA, KOCHI, JAPAN. Sclero¬ 
derma verrucosum Geaster hygrometricus Cyathus stercoreus? (This 
plant differs slightly from stercoreus, but has similar large globose 
sporidia. It is very close to it if not a form). 
193-NOTES ON A REVIEW OF THE “GEASTRiE.” 
“Lloyd takes every occasion to insist on the futility of publish¬ 
ing authorities as being an unnecessary pandering to the vanity of 
species makers .”—British Journal of Botany. 
That is a correct statement of the case and we have not changed 
our opinion. 
“Lloyd assumes that his determinations and descriptions are 
absolutely final and it is unnecessary for the student to look further. 
— B?itish Journal of Botany . 
There is no such statement in the pamphlet or in print. I am 
very sorry if I have given any individual such an impression for the 
statement is certainly far from the fact. On the contrary, no one 
realizes more than I do that our views of the species are dependent 
upon the light before us and the information prevalent at the time of 
publication and also that these views are subject to modification as we 
subsequently learn more of the subject. In evidence I quote from 
Mycological Notes, page 93 : 
“No rule can be laid down to define a species. It is simply a 
matter of individual opinion, of individual conviction. Two plants 
that impress one person as entirely distinct, may appeal to another 
person as being only forms of the same plant and vice \ ersa. There 
can be no authority in such matters, we can only defer to the opinions 
of those who have the largest experience, and I believe the more ex¬ 
perience one has the more liberal one becomes.” 
109 
