229—ANTHURUS BOREALIS IN GERMANY. 
It is simply a confirmatory incident to illustrate our position 
that the fungi of this country and Europe are practically the same,, 
when Prof. Henning finds growing in Europe Anthurus borealis, a plant 
that was described as a “new species” from this country less than ten 
years ago. It is quite a notable addition to the mycological flora of 
Europe. Compared to our phalloids their phalloid flora is very scanty. 
It is very confirmatory of our views on the distribution of plants that 
every phalloid that occurs in Europe has been discovered in the United 
States although we have quite a number of species that they do not 
find in Europe. Prof. Henning describes the plant he finds as differing 
from the American species in some slight particulars and calls it An¬ 
thurus borealis var. Klitzingii. 
230—THE NAME “PILA.” 
“I notice one thing in your remarks on Bovista pila that makes 
me think you have misunderstood Berkeley’s name, and I trust you 
will pardon me for calling your attention to it. You speak of the 
name as an inappropriate one because the plant is never ‘pilose.’ I 
do not find that he says in his description that it is pilose, and I have 
always taken the specific name to be the Latin word pila, ‘a ball,’ 
which would not be very inappropriate since the fungus is so generally 
like a ball. If Berkeley had wished to express a hairy character or 
even a name suggestive of that character, it seems to me he would 
have written Bovista pilosa.”—Extract from letter of Prof. Chas. Peck. 
There is no doubt that Prof. Peck has this matter straight, and 
that we were entirely wrong. Although our limited knowledge of 
Latin is scarcely more than a memory of our declensions in our boy¬ 
hood school days, a blunder of this kind is inexcusable, for before 
accepting as fact, or making a statement of this kind, we should have 
referred to a Latin dictionary. To be candid, we did not question 
that Berkeley’s name of the plant referred to the supposed “pilose” 
nature of the plant and blundered in doing so. We desire to express 
our best thanks to Prof. Peck for having so courteously called our 
attention to this matter, and thus enabling us to correct a misstate¬ 
ment. In this connection we take the opportunity to say that in our 
record of all plants considered by us, we wish to publish facts only, 
and we are more than thankful to be advised of any mistake that we 
may promptly correct it 
231—ANOTHER SPECIES OF[CATASTOMA. 
Since most of this pamphlet has been in type we have received 
from W. H. Long, Jr., Texas, a species of Catastoma very different 
from the three described. We think it is a species of Australia, but 
it is a novelty in the United States. Externally it resembles Bovista 
pila and the adherent exoperidium does not form such a prominent 
cup as in other species of Catastoma. We expect the plant will be 
considered and illustrated in some future issue of Mycological Notes. 
132 
