14 Dansk Botanisk Arkiv, Bd. 2, Nr. 11. 



inclined (like Schroeter) to regard as identical with Collybia con- 

 fluens (see below). Such alterations will reduce the number of 

 Marasmii a little, but on the other hand Mycena cohcerens evi- 

 dently is a true Marasmius, very close to M. lupuletorum. 



Several post-Friesian authors have tried materially to alter 

 his classification. Thus Karsten (loc. cit.) splits the genus in 

 two, making of the Friesian section Mycena a new genus An- 

 drosaceus (Patouillard) and uniting his section Collybia (sub 

 nom. Eu-Marasmias) with the genuine Collybias in a genus Ma- 

 rasmius (sens. nov.). Evidently a good deal can be said in 

 favour of this rearrangement. Still such species as M. globula- 

 ris, M. lupuletorum (Bresad.) and M. scorodonius (of the Eu-Ma- 

 rasmii) differ considerably from the Collybia-type and link the 

 Collybia-like species to the Androsacei, f. inst. M. cohærens, M. 

 alliaceus and others. 



Ricken, who maintains the Friesian genus, alters the classi- 

 fication by dividing the section Collybia in two instead of the. 

 original three. This is done by splitting up the second lot(7er- 

 gini) and dividing its constituents between the first (Scortei) and 

 the third (Calopodes) . I consider this a decided improvement. 

 In fact the group Tergini is not very well defined by Fries. 

 Thus while he places M. globularis in group A, he puts M. Wyn- 

 nei (which is probably identical) in group B. — But like Quélet 

 I think it better to transfer M. alliaceus and its allies (the Frie- 

 sian group Chordales) from seel. II (Mycena) to sect. I (Collybia); 

 and consequently I also adopt the Quéletian names for the two 

 main sections, viz: Radicosi and Insitilii. (The annulate, resu- 

 pinate and sessile marasmioid species I leave entirely out of con- 

 sideration, as I have never seen any of them.) 



The most ambiguous species to fit into any system are M. 

 foelidus, M. ramealis and their allies. Fries places them in Ca- 

 lopodes, together with M. scorodonius etc. with which they have 

 verj' little in common ; Quélet on the other hand transfers them 

 to Insititii. I am inclined to think they cannot be properly 

 classified without working up simultaneously the whole field of 

 allied species from the Tropics. — M. scorodonius too stands 

 rather isolated, without any natural affinity to other species here 

 mentioned. Like Ricken I place it next to M. lupuletorum etc. 



The minor points of my classification can be seen in the 

 Key and will require no particular explanation. 



