culars are obscure ; that is, the composition of the stem, which in C. aurantiacus is substantially stuffed, 

 in C. lutescens tubulai-, even in youth. This may appear a trifling matter to guide the judgment, but as 

 it is a constant difference between them, not a casual one, it suffices. We must be understood, however, 

 as speaking of both species in their prime, and not when the texture and configuration have lost all cha- 

 racter in decay. Fries makes subdivisions of those Cantharelluses wUhJIes/iy and those with tubular stems; 

 in England we have but two species under the first head, C. ciiarius and C. anrantiaats, and we may 

 dismiss them, having pointed out the fact that our present subject, C. lutescens, comes under the second, 

 those with tubular stems. Among these, its more immediate kindred, C. tuhaformis is the only one likely 

 to be taken for it, indeed Fries places C. lutescens as a variety of C. tubcefonnis ; the latter has cinereous- 

 yellow, straight folds, and, although rare in South Britain, is not quite so much so as the other ; it is stated 

 by Fries to be " caespitose ou rotten wood," as well as on the ground. Our yellowish friend grew in a 

 plantation, but whether there was decayed wood beneath the soil we cannot say, the fungus certainly did 

 not spring immediately from it if there were. All the species of Cantharellus have beauty; their form is 

 often very elegant, and the gluten, which sometimes renders the pUeus of an Agaric or Boletus repulsive, 

 is not found on them. All the family have white spores, in the case of C. cibarius with a creamy tint. 



