shown that the ergot of Phragmites produces not only its own peculiar species of Cordyceps (Cordyceps microcephala), but also occasionally the same species which is usually produced by ergot of rye, viz., Cordyceps purpurea. M. Westendorp, moreover, has lately found ergot of rye producing, instead of Cordyceps purpurea, a totally different fungus, viz., Agaricus papillatus (Batsch).[1] It has been attempted to explain M. Westendorp's observations by the suggestion of the accidental presence of the spores of the Agaric; and this explanation might have been accepted, if a stray specimen or two only of the Agaric had appeared; but the ergot in question produced a continuous crop of the Agaric for several weeks, pointing to more than an accidental connexion between the two. Upon the question as to the nature of the supposed spermatia observed by Tulasne in the early stage of ergot, some remarks of Bonorden, in the "Botanische Zeitung," for April 9, 1858, should be considered. They tend to show that the spermatia in question are not sexual organs, but of the nature of spores.
We have but little space to comment upon the systematic portion of Mr. Berkeley's work. His extensive and intimate acquaintance with the whole tribe of fungi affords a sufficient guarantee for its completeness. The arrangement of the orders and genera is according to the author's plan in Lindley's "Vegetable Kingdom," and the "Introduction to Cryptogamic Botany." As far as the Hymenomycetes are concerned, the system is nearly that of Fries, as given in the "Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici." The plan of the "Systema Mycologicum" itself would, perhaps, have afforded greater facilities for students, but the adoption of it would have been a step backwards. At the same time, we should strongly recommend beginners to use the present work in conjunction with the former treatise, in the fifth volume of the "English Flora." The genera propounded in the "Epicrisis," although perfectly natural, and in most cases easily recognized by practised mycologists from difference of habit, are exceedingly difficult to identify from their written characters. Taking, for instance, the genera Agaricus and Russula, a very little practice will enable a student to distinguish the two; but if he were driven to the written characters, he would find the main distinction to reside in the structure of the trama, a difference which cannot be made out without careful microscopical investigation.
Mr. Berkeley admits Fries' genus Nyctalis amongst the Hymenomycetes, calling attention to De Bary's observations as to what the latter considered a secondary form of fruit.[2] Since the publication of De Bary's paper, Tulasne has written upon the subject, first in the "Comptes Rendus" (January 2, 1860), and subsequently, at greater length, in the last number of the "Annales des Sciences Naturelles."[3] He unhesitatingly denies the correctness of De Bary's observations; and his re-
