240 
TIIE JOURNAL OF ROT AN V 
them.” A large number, about 180, mostly very small specimens, 
and many represented only by autograph labels, were acquired with 
Nolte’s herbarium, which was purchased by the Department in 1875. 
Another note by Brown (undated ) runs “ Forskael’s coloured drawings, 
for 8 guineas ; of this Mr. Dryander supposes there is only another 
copy, they are paintings copied from the originals of ”—the sentence 
is not completed, and the drawings cannot be traced. 
Dr. Christensen’s revision of the Flora is very complete ; it 
conveys in little space indications of the existence or non-existence of 
each species in the Herbarium ; the arrangement is that of the Flora 
under the names there given, followed by such synonyms as bear 
upon them and the modern name of the species ; the relation of all 
being made clearly an excellent typographical arrangement. In the 
identification with more recent species, Ascherson, Schweinfurth, and 
Muschler have, as a rule, been followed. “ My purpose,” says the 
author, “ is chiefly to point out whether Forsskal’s species really were 
undescribed in 1775 [the date of the publication of the Flora~\, and 
their names in consequence have claim of priority; in some cases I 
have therefore created new combinations of names ” 
The clear printing and arrangement of the revision render it very 
convenient for consultation, and Dr. Christensen is to be congratulated 
on his useful and interesting work. 
SHORT NOTES. 
The Deria^ation of Merulius. In his review of the British 
Museum Handbook of tlie Larger British Fungi (p. 222) my 
friend Mr. Carleton Rea comments on the adoption ot‘ the derivation 
of Merulius from merula , a blackbird, adding that Fries (Syst. 
Mycol. i. p. 327) derives it from merus , pure—“nomine ad Mor- 
chellas ( ineras —tute cibarias) denotandas veteres usi sunt, hue tran- 
sulit Haller.” Mr. Rea in his British Basidiomycetce follows Fries, 
as do Bigeard and Guillemin and others. On the other hand, Saccardo 
derives the name from “ Merula , prob. ob colores fungi,” and in this 
is followed by W. Gr. Smith. The name Merulius was first used 
with more or less its present significance by A. Haller, who in his 
Historia Stirpium indigenarum II civet ire 17G8 includes four species 
in the genus—two of them species of Cantharellus and the other 
two Merulius tremellosus —“ Nomine meo Johannes Bauliinus & 
Boerhaavius ad alium Fungum usi fuerant.” Bauhin and Boerhaave 
had both used the name Merulius to signify Morels, both, moreover, 
including the same four species, the “ primum genus” of the “fungi 
esculenti ” of Clusius. (Haller in 1742 had used the name for one of 
these species of Morchella.) The first use of the name Merulius is 
usually assigned to J. Bauhin, who in his Historia Blantarum 1651 
(lib. xl. Cap. 37) treats of “ Fungus rugosus, vel cavernosus, siue 
Merulius niger & albus.” There is neither here nor in Haller any 
suggestion of the derivation of the name, and on the face of it there 
seems more ground for Saccardo’s guess than for that of Fries. 
Although the matter seemed of little consequence, it appeared likelv 
