Kauffman: The Genus Gomphidius 117 



Fayod (4) argues for a relationship between Gomphidius and 

 Paxillus and includes both these genera in his tribe Paxilles. 

 He, as well as others, laid a foundation for his argument by 

 keeping Schweinitz's American species "Agariciis rhodoxanthus'' 

 (14) in the genus Gomphidius. This plant has been fully dis- 

 cussed by Atkinson (1) who places it in Paxillus, where I have 

 hitherto kept it. In passing, it may be well to point out that 

 it has a much closer relationship to some of the American 

 species of Boletinus, and might well be put into that genus, dis- 

 regarding its gill characters (the gills sometimes anastomose), 

 and taking into account its habit, texture, spores and cystidia as 

 of more relationship value than the gills. Such a situation has 

 arisen with regard to the species of Lenzites, and a number of 

 mycologists now agree to attach the latter genus to the Poly- 

 poraceae, a procedure which seems to me thoroughly scientific. 

 Fayod (I.e.) pointed out the similarities of the Schweinitz plant 

 with species of Boletus, especially with B. suhtomentosus Fr., 

 but as far as I know no one except Battaille (Les Bolets, p. 24, 

 1908) has definitely placed it in that group. The plant should 

 be called Phylloponis rhodoxanthus (Schw.) Bres. (3), and placed 

 next to the genus Boletinus in the Boletaceae. 



Ricken has grouped Gomphidius with Hygrophorus, indicating 

 its relationship with the subgenus Limacium of that genus, a 

 disposition which I have followed (8), and which seems to me to 

 have much in its favor. The structure of the veils, pileus, stem 

 and gills are practically alike in certain species of Hygrophorus 

 and of Gomphidius, the outstanding difficulties being the necessity 

 of accounting for the characteristic cystidia and spores of the 

 latter. But I can see no other connection where the difificulties 

 are not more numerous. Rea (12) has placed it next to and 

 presumably "above" the genus Flammula, but this arrangement 

 seems to me entirely unsupportable. 



Our species are found practically always in the neighborhood 

 of coniferous trees, often in sphagnum bogs or in deep moss in the 

 forest. Collections are made infrequently except in the north- 

 western Pacific coast states, where several species are quite 

 abundant. 



I wish to express my obligations to the authorities of the 



