Spocimens in our Collection. 
Pennsylvania, Dr. W. Herbst. District of Columbia, F. J. Braendle, C. D. Shear. 
lennessee, H. M. Caldwell. North Carolina, H. C. Beardslee, Hannah C. Anderson. 
222— MITREMYOES RAVENELII VAR. MINOR. 
(Plate 9b 
We have received a beautiful lot of these little specimens from 
F- J- Tyler, collected at Fort Kthan Allen, Virginia. Our first impres¬ 
sions led to the conclusion that they were distinct from either of the 
three species with which we were familiar, but Prof. Patouillard, to 
whom we sent specimens, considers them a form of Ravenelii. While 
in general appearance the plant is very different, still I can see no 
marked point of distinction on which to base a species. They are 
much smaller; the peridium much smoother; the rooting strands very 
much less developed and not broadly attached to the peridium, but 
rather separating and forming a kind of cup as shown in plate 9, 
fig. t. In addition, the spores are much smaller, and the long axis 
in some is so relatively short that some spores are almost globose.* 
It appears to us that this must be the same plant that Berkeley 
has called M. Ravenelii var. minor (Grevillea, vol. 2, p. 51). In 
deference to Patouillard’s opinion we consider them a variety of 
Ravenelii, but we shall not be surprised if it be finally shown that they 
are entitled to specific rank. 
Specimens in our Collection. 
Virginia, F. J. Tyler. 
223— A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
“Bovista dealbata Lloyd, is in my opinion, identical with B. 
tomentosa Yitt. (B. minor Morgan). I beg that you will examine 
the spores of the ripe specimen, magnified 750 diameters, and you will 
find them very finely punctate.” Extract from private letter from 
Dr. Hollos. 
This plant by another eminent European mycologist has been 
referred to B. plumbea, and by still another is considered a distinct 
species. We have here three conflicting opinions regarding the very 
same plant, thus indicating that it is very easy for different workers 
to differ as to the identity of plants. It is this difference of views 
that makes the study of mycology so interesting. If everybody 
thought alike and the plants were all worked up, the study would lose 
much of its fascination. No exception can be taken by anyone 
because others differ as to classification of any particular plant. We 
are aiming both to describe and illustrate the plants by photographic 
process in order that others may recognise them. Our object is to issue 
a work that will enable readers to know the plants concerned. If we 
succeed in doing this, others are welcome to disagree with us as to the 
name the plants should bear. Let us be liberal enough to grant every 
man a right to his own opinion. 
(*). On our first examination of the spores we thought they were globose, and that it was 
probably Mitremyces Berkeleyii, and as far as external appearance and size go, is well repre¬ 
sented in Massee’s figure of that species. We forwarded specimens with a query to the herba¬ 
rium at Kew, and our opinion was confirmed. As on further examination the spores proved not 
to be globose as shown in our microphotograph (plate U, fig. 8), if the plant is M. Berkeleyii, 
the spores of that species are not correctly described or vary as to shape. 
127 
