(Psathyra) semivestitus. B. & Br. Dinmore, Downton. (Panæolus) retirugis. · B.

Dinmore.

Cooke.

Bridstow.

Morchella Smithiana.

semilibera. Fr. Dadnor.

Lachnella nivea (Hedw.) Downton.

Diaporthe inquilina (Wallr.) on Umbellifers. Downton.

Empusa muscæ (Cohn.) on flies. Stoke Edith,

THE practical completion of the Illustrations of British Fungi affords me an opportunity and an excuse, for a few brief observations on some of the species which are open to discussion. It seems to me not of so much consequence whether any distinct form of Agaric should be called a species, or only a variety, as it is to have a definite name by which such a form, or variety, or species, can be distinguished, and a true and faithful figure to which reference can be made. Notwithstanding this, it cannot be an advantage to science that species should be called by names which assume that the plants represented are the same as those which have been described by older authors under such designations. It may be that I have not always been wholly free from error myself, but wherever such is shown to be the case, I am ready to retract, since I know that to "err is human," and during the course of this paper I shall not hesitate to express my doubts frankly, and give the benefit of the doubt to those who may have disputed my views.

It is not my intention, nevertheless, to give way recklessly on points which have given me much cause for consideration, and on which the evidence, as yet adduced, is insufficient to raise a doubt in my own mind. Such, for instance, is the case with Tricholoma russula and Hygrophorus erubescens, as well as Russula delica and Lactarius exsuccus. In both these cases, although prepared to treat with respect views opposed to my own, I am not convinced.

There is, however, a rather important instance in which I am inclined to modify considerably. In the Scottish Naturalist, July, 1890, the Rev. Dr. Keith writes of Agaricus storea, Fr. as follows

"This fungus has got itself established in our books as a species which has been found both in England and Scotland; but though I have frequently met with the plant which has been going by this name among British mycologists, I have never been able to satisfy myself as to its identity with Fries' species. Ag. storea is recorded and described in three of Fries' works,—his "Epicrisis" (1836-38), his Monographia (1857), and "Hymenomycetes Europoi" (1874). In each of these it is expressly mentioned that he had found it only twice, in 1815 and 1833, and on both occasions on the same trunk. As regards his acquaintance with the species, therefore, all three works are of equal value, for he had never met with it after describing it in the "Epicrisis." Indeed the description in the "Hymenomycetes" is a verbatim translation of that in the "Epicrisis," so that I am inclined to regard the description in the "Monographia " as his latest independent account of the species. Now in that description it is expressly declared to be a solitary growing species, a feature which is emphasized by being printed in italics, and which is said to remove it far from other species otherwise approaching it closely. On the other hand, the fungus which has been passing among us as Ag. storea Fr. is a remarkably cœspitose one, diverging in this respect very strikingly from the habit of the true plant. Stevenson in his British Fungi gives Fries' description of the species with

his usual accuracy, and mentions two habitats, Ascot, and Perth fungus show. I know nothing of the Ascot specimens, but those which occurred at Perth were growing in large clusters, and it was there I got, from a distinguished English mycologist, the name of Ag. storea Fr. for a fungus which I had previously taken for Ag. lacrymabundus Fr.. Cooke cuts the knot of the difficulty by calling it Ag. storea Fr. var. caespitosus C. But let any one compare the figure which he so designates with that which he gives of Ag. lacrymabundus Fr., and, excepting the slight difference of colour, he will find little to distinguish them. The conclusion I am inclined to come to is that my original idea was correct, and that the fungus which has been taken for Ag. storea Fr. is only a form, and scarcely entitled to be called a variety, of Ag. lacrymabundus Fr."

Before making any observations on the foregoing I must testify my profound respect for the opinions of Dr. Keith on matters relating to the Hymenomycetes, my ready acknowledgment of his great experience in field work, and a full recognition of his careful and acute powers of observation. No opinion which I have heard on this vexed question has come to me with an equal degree of force, and I must acknowledge myself, if not entirely, yet to a very large extent, ready to accept his interpretation.

The first record of this name amongst British Fungi was by Berkeley and Broome in the Annals of Natural History, No. 1418, with the remark, "This curious species occurred last year at the base of different trees at Ascot, and at Coed Coch; and it has also been found by Mr. W. G. Smith, and was exhibited at South Kensington, October, 1873. It is considered very rare by Fries; but it is probably one of those species which are abundant in some one year, and are not found again for a generation." W. G. Smith figured his specimens in the Journal of Botany, Vol. xiv., plate 176, fig 4. There remains no doubt that the species seen by Berkeley, and found by Smith, were the same as that figured in Illustrations of British Fungi, plate 543, and, again the same as that alluded to by Dr. Keith as exhibited at Perth. Of the identity of all these there need be no question. Berkeley and Smith had the same plant in view, for both have indicated it to me as Ag. storea Fr., and gave me the first impression of the species.

In 1884 Mr. C. B. Plowright gave expression to his views on this species, in Grevillea, vol. xiii., p. 48, where he described it under the name of Ag. hypoxanthus, adding "This agaric has been regarded as Ag. storea, but incorrectly so. It is always caespitose, and has hitherto occurred either on rotten beech wood, or under beech trees." I was still under the impression that it was a caespitose condition of Ag. storea when it was figured as Ag. storea var. cæspitosus in Illustrations of Fungi, plate 543, and I was much influenced by the opinion of the Rev. J. Berkeley in its favour.

Upon careful re-consideration of the subject, I have come to the conclusion that we really know nothing of Ag. storea beyond the description of Fries. There is no figure of it in existence, as far as we know, and we have nothing to guide us but a strict adherence to the description given by Fries. The plant under consideration does not conform in all particulars to the description. It cannot be

the typical form, and it seems to me that I am not justified in insisting upon the retention of a variety, the type of which is comparatively unknown. I think that the points of divergence insisted upon are, its caespitose habit, moist viscid pileus, and hollow stem, and I doubt if the edges of the gills are albo-serrulate. I cannot recognise the habit of Inocybe (habitus potius Inocybes), therefore my inference is that it is safer to revert (at least pro tem) to the name Agaricus hypoxanthus, Plow, and dissever it entirely from Ag. storea.

One other question has been raised, and it is that which I do not at present see my way to accept, that this is a form of Agaricus lacrymabundus, Fr. I have not recognised the "weeping gills," and for the time being will pass it by as an 66 open question."

I must be permitted to relieve my mind a little in reference to three or four closely similar forms to each other which have hitherto borne distinctive names, but which I am beginning to think do not deserve that honour. This group includes, as we know them, Agaricus (Nolanea) pisciodorus Cesati (illustrat. 378, fig. A), Ag. (Nolanea) piceus Kalch (illustrat. 379, fig. A), Ag. (Naucoria) cucumis Pers. (illustrat. 452), and Ag. (Nolanea) nigripes Trog (illustrat. 1,170).

It is noteworthy that all these four species are characterised as having a strong odour as of putrid fish or cucumber. Perhaps it may be assumed that the odour is the same, whatever it may be said to resemble. In the next place three are referred to Nolanea, and one to Naucoria. I am not disposed to place much reliance upon the presence of one in Naucoria as evidence. It is not easy to detect amber-coloured spores from salmon-coloured spores, and as all have apparently elliptical smooth spores of nearly the same size, at least in three out of four, the size and form of spores will not help us, and I doubt much whether the Ag. cucumis, with which we are acquainted, may not be as much Nolanea as Naucoria. At any rate I should be quite prepared for such a revelation. Then, again, all of them have black, or nearly black, stems, not a common event with slender-stemmed Agarics. Say what we will, there is a suspiciously close alliance between all the species, and if we take the trouble to compare the respective diagnoses of all the four, we shall be no nearer the discovery of good marks of specific difference than by a comparison of the figures. If we strike out from all simultaneously the features in which they coincide, there will be very little left.

A. nigripes Trog. Fr. Hym. Eur., No. 752.

Pileus submembranaceous, conic then campanulate, obtuse, without striæ, covered with paler flocci, brown, stem fistulose, twisted, smooth, black; gills nearly free, thin, ventricose, yellow flesh colour. Smell as of putrid fish. Stem often bent, tough, four to five inches long. Pileus 14in. broad. In swamps.

A. pisciodorus Cesati. Fr. Hym. Eur., No. 753.

Pileus submembranaceous, conic then campanulate, then convex, obsoletely umbonate, velvety and soft, fulvous cinnamon; stem subfistulose, tough, delicately pruinate, chestnut turning blackish, paler at the apex, rather velvety: gills slightly adnexed, gil vous then flesh colour, at length fulvous. Odour similar to A. nigripes but colour different. On chips and rotten leaves.-Spores ovoidoblong.

A. piceus, Kalch. Fr. Hym. Eur. 761.

Sacc. 3410.

Odour of cucumber,

Pileus submembranaceous, conic then campanulate, papillate, without striæ, smooth, pitch colour, umber when dry; stem fistulose, rather tough, short, even, delicately pruinose, of the same colour; gills emarginate, with a decurrent tooth, ventricose, rather distant, white then flesh coloured. or fish. In grassy places in moist woods. -Sp. 10-12 x 4. Ag. cucumis, Pers. Fr. Hym. Eur. 949. Pileus rather fleshy, broadly campanulate, smooth, fuscous bay when moist, paler about the margin; stem thin, firm, smooth, fuscous turning black, thickened at the apex, hollow, pruinose; gills slightly adnexed, ventricose, palid then saffron yellow. Odour of cucumber. Pileus lin. broad, but occurs smaller, Amongst chips.-Sp. 9-10 x 5-6.

The following is the condensed form which the descriptions would take if reduced to one species :

Agaricus (Nolanea) nigripes (Trog).

Pileus submembranaceous, conic then campanulate, obtuse, without striæ, floccose or velvety, brown; stem fistulose, straight or flexuous, becoming black, smooth, sometimes pruinose and paler at the apex. Gills adnexed nearly free, thin, ventricose, gilvous then flesh colour, smell of putrid fish or cucumber.

(a) typica. Stem flexuous, wholly black, pileus clad with paler flocci. In swamps.

(b) pisciodorus. Stem straight, pruinose, paler at the apex, rather velvety. Gills becoming fulvous.-Spores ovoid-oblong. Pileus fulvous-cinnamon. On chips.

(c) cucumis. Stem straight, pruinose, firm, thickened above. Pileus smooth, fuscous bay when moist, paler at the margin. Gills pallid then saffron yellow. Spores 9-10 x 5-6. On chips.

(d) piceus. Stem short, straight, thicker than in the type, pruinose. Pileus papillate, pitchy brown when moist, umber when dry (paler at the margin). Gills emarginate with a decurrent tooth, white then flesh colour. Spores 10-12 x 4. In moist grassy places.

It must be observed that the only one of these forms which departs from the type, in any feature which would warrant specific distinction, is the last, which is the only truly aberrant form, in virtue of the robust stem, papillate pileus, and emarginate gills.

If I might venture an opinion, based on the belief that Ag. cucumis is not truly a good Naucoria, but rather a Nolanea, I should suggest that Agaricus nigripes, pisciodorus, and cucumis, are varieties of one species, call it by whatever name you please, and that Ag. piceus has distinctive features which might warrant its retention as a fairly good species. At any rate it is an open question, which merits investigation in the light of these suggestions.

Another question of doubt often presents itself to my mind in connection with Ag. (Clitocybe) odorus. Fries maintains the Ag. viridis of Withering and Bolton's figures (tab. 12) as a distinct species under the name of Ag. viridis, but as far as British Fungi are concerned I feel satisfied that we have only the one species,