Mycological System

We have not omitted any species offered as new in Schäffer, Bulliard, Batsch, Bolton, Sowerby, Holmsköld, in the Flora Danica, etc., unless by a slip of the pen. I have extracted most of the species of the remaining authors; I recognize those of Schumacher and others from the unpublished icons of the authors. I could only care little for the species of Villars and Otto due to their defective descriptions. — Otherwise, however, it was not my intention to aggregate all citations; I have cited only the first descriptor of each species, whether new or considered new; the others may be known from the synonyms.

In writing the book itself, I wished to reconcile the utmost brevity with the integrity of the subject (hence also the utmost typographical economy) *). Without this effort for brevity, the present volume would have resulted three times larger. The species of the genus Agaricus described by authors are more numerous than those of lichens, mosses, etc. Hence, I have adapted the diagnoses only to distinguish the species of each tribe. I have never repeated those things which pertain to the tribes, all of which I consider natural, having already been brought forward in the descriptions of the species (which therefore seem very brief, but scarcely omit an essential note). If in these, observations occur frequently...

*) I omitted a complete index of synonyms by design, as the book itself would have been hardly a third smaller. It would also be of greater utility to have a commentary illustrating all mycological authors (and especially the icons) in chronological order with critical observations. This would serve in place of a Mycological Library. It would soon provide an explanation of the icons to those leafing through larger works. If it pleases botanists, I will take care to have this manuscript printed. — When a genus is divided into several, for example Boleti, the species of the authors are to be sought under the new ones, as in Polyporus. I have added the name of the first determiner for each species in the index here. Surely, Polyporus perennis Linn. under Bol. is more pleasing than P. perennis of mine; the former lacks nothing in historical utility, nor does the latter lack a desire for vain glory.