338 C. H. Kauffman 



In the account of L. hispida no mention is made of the matter. 

 Finally, Murrill, in the North American Flora, tries to solve the 

 puzzle by including all these names except L. hispida in the 

 doubtful species of Persoon, viz., L. aspera. The gills are said 

 by him to be ''sometimes forked." 



What would you! I have selected this detail out of the his- 

 tory of systematic mycology in order to illustrate the psychology 

 of the taxonomist when he is confronted with the question of 

 the identity of some of the older species. I must admit that I 

 have no final answer to the questions involved above. However, 

 certain points stand out from the summary. 



Apparently L. hispida is unknown in the United States. 

 There seems to be no question that the gills are always simple 

 in this case. It is known, if at all, to the French mycologists 

 and those of southern Europe. It is, therefore, to be looked for 

 in the southern half of our country. Lange (9) suggests that 

 L. fuscosquamea Pk. corresponds to it, but see remarks on that 

 species below. 



As to L. aspera Pers., it would seem that the conclusion of 

 Fries, mentioned before, is the only tenable one. The name 

 should be deleted. 



With regard to the gill-forking of the two species, L. acutae- 

 squamosa and L. Friesii, I can only cite my own observations, 

 namely, that collections show gills either abundantly branched 

 or that they show no branching except very scantily, and not at 

 all in the normal manner. Whichever name may be selected 

 for the forked-gill type of plant, I feel convinced that this is a 

 genetic characteristic that holds, and that we have these two 

 species in this country. 



Lepiota arenicola Pk. • — This name is given in Quelet & Bat- 

 taille's monograph as L. arenicola Men., but I have been unable 

 to locate the original description or its authorship. 



Lepiota asperula Atk. and L. eriophora Pk. — The former 

 was described in 1901, the latter in 1903. Morgan in 1906 re- 

 duced L. eriophora to synonymy under Atkinson's species. Peck 

 (N.Y . State Mus. Bull., 116: 25, 1907) objects to the procedure 

 of Morgan by pointing out the differences between the two spe- 



