150 REV. M. J. BERKELEY ON TWO NEW GENERA OF FUNGI. 
In the fortieth table a figure is given of a Phallus which has puzzled all succeeding 
botanists. Paulet copies it indeed in his large treatise on Fungi, colouring it after the 
description, and proposing it as a true figure of Phallus caninus, Hudson, to which how- 
ever it bears at first sight but a remote resemblance. Fries says of it, under Phallus 
caninus, “ Phallus exilis Marattæ, Batt. Arim. p. 76. t. XL. F. nisi preecedentis icon 
erronea affinis species*." It seems, however, judging from the other figures contained in 
the volume, impossible that he should have gone out of his way to make anything so 
unlike the ordinary form of fungus in question. The account besides is too circumstantial 
to admit of much doubt. The fungus, Battarra informs us, was found by Father Maratta 
in the neighbourhood of Rome (ultra Genzanum), on the 5th of October, 1736, in à wood 
known by the name of Li Disertini, and communicated to the author in May 1754. 
Several specimens were found in a heap of rotten leaves. The volva is described as dirty 
white, coriaceous, and filled with a mucilaginous substance as in other species of Phallus. 
From this arose a club-shaped cellular receptacle, hollow within, the upper part being even 
and solid within (meaning probably that it was imperforate), and covered with a crust 
which was red when the fungus was young, but when it had arrived at maturity, the top 
was green, with a zone of red beneath it, the lower portion of the stem being dirty white, 
sprinkled with reddish brown superficial specks. When the fungus was passed maturity, 
the upper portion passed into a foetid fluid. | 
It should seem then that Battarra did not indeed see the fungus when fresh, and that 
his figure was taken from a dried specimen, for he says nothing of any drawing; but it is 
very difficult to conceive how a fungus tapering to a point, as exhibited in Sowerby’s figure 
of Phallus caninus, could by any mode of drying assume the broadly clavate form exhibited 
by the figure. l 
A fungus, however, has been lately found by H. W. Ravenel, Esq., near the Santee 
River, South Carolina, which exhibits the peculiar form of that of Battarra, and when for- 
warded to me by the Rev. M. A. Curtis, was noticed as differing greatly in structure from 
other species of Phallus, in its not showing the slightest distinction between the stem and 
hymenium. It is true that at a later period specimens of the same species were found b 
Mr. Ravenel exhibiting the same form as that of Phallus caninus but wi d 
: À with the ample 
Höhen rane confluent with the stem, which differs but slightly from it in 
ppearance an cture, and al i 
stem of Phallus caninus, at the chk QA kot Ne aer. ge uec uei 
cellular head. Excellent speci i jo witi en 
apum isum, i hh rere a it ni me pa vi 
eas thea ees pred E sk ds servations were founded on the dried specimens 
Ae moi bran tie erent occur ‚In a species analogous to Phallus 
me, unong not identical with it, it is very possible that a clavate form of Phallus 
canımus may also exist, and that Battarra’s figure is due to such a variety. This 
pretty well established if it were positivel De rare 
positively clear that the head in Maratta’s plant is imper- 
f ‘ "i 
i: kid as he used the word *perforate? in the description of other species, he would 
Mete E omitted it in the present instance, and the phrase alluded to above may 
considered as intended to indicate something different from the more common 
* LA LA . 
Two misprints in the above citation are corrected, 
