Jakob E. Lange: Studies in the Agarics of Denmark. IV. 35 



to my mind is not the typical R. pascuus of Fries but probably 

 identical with the plant mentioned in his »Monographia« as a 

 pinophile distinct variety of R. pascuus, or probably a distinct 

 species.] — 



2. R. xylophilus nov. spec. 



Spores 10 x 8 l / 2 u, irregularly angular-stellate. 



Fig. specimens: S. Nærå, on rotten stump of Fagus, Sept. 190!. 

 Also on stump of Corylus, Hjallese, Oct. 1909. 



Although microscopically almost identical to the preceding 

 specits this little tiny plant can hardly be regarded as a variety 

 of R. pascuus. Habitually it has much in common with R. mi- 

 nutus Karst, (no: 10). I add a brief diagnosis: 



Pilens 1 cm latin 1 , coiwexus, pellucido-slriatus, pallidus (parscentralis 

 subfusca, slriis isabellino-argillaceis, leviterin incarnato vergentibus). 

 Stipes 4 cm x / mm, subpellucidus, (ilbidus. Lamellce liberie, albce, 

 dein pallide roseo-incarnatæ. Sporæ lit supr. 



B. NODULOSÆ. 



a. OVISPORÆ. 



3. R. cetratus (Fr.?) Schroeter. 



Spores 10 1 /« — 11 x 7 — 7 1 /* u, subovate, obtusely angular-wavy. 

 Basidia always 2-spored. 



Fig. specimens, Kirkeby, amongst moss and sticks in wood of 

 Picea, Oct. 1904. Not uncommon in coniferous woods. 



This species is often confounded with R. pascuus, but it is 

 easily recognized by its microscopic characters. Macroscopically 

 it differs in being more slender, with a slight tinge of ochra- 

 ceous all over. The description of Fries does not fit very well, 

 and besides his plant is said to grow »in fagetis«, what the species 

 here mentioned never does. Saccardo says the spore is »4-apicu- 

 latis«, an observation which probably refers to a form of R. 

 pascuus. 



4. R. hirtipes (Schum.?)J. E. Lange — R. mammosus Ricken 



(nee Fries). 



Spores 10 — 14 x 7 — 8 1 /.,, ovate or oval, rather obtusely angular. 

 Basidia 4-spored. Cystidia hairshaped. 



Fig. specimens: Hjallese, in wood of Quercus, Corylus etc., 

 solitary, Oct. 1895. Not uncommon in similar localities. 



Ricken describes this plant very well sub nom. (N.) mammo- 

 sus Fr., but it is not at all like the Ag. mammosus figured in 

 Icones selectæ The habitat also differs, as Ag. mammosus is 

 said to grow *in locis apricis, graminosis«, while my plant grows 

 in dense and rather moist copsewoods. — To my mind the 

 Ag. hirtipes figured in Flora Danica represents this species, 



3* 



