10 WORK IN THE FIELD AMONGST THE FUNGI. 



they are good species, although at one time they were accepted 

 as such. The Rev. M. J. Berkeley once described a fungus 

 under the name of -Agariciis sadleri which he considered to be a 

 species of the subgenus Clitocyhe, and was figured in the 

 Illustrations as Clitosybe sadleri on plate 127. From the very first, 

 I contended that this was only an abnormal form of Hyt)holoma 

 fascicularis, and remonstrated with the venerable mycologist on 

 that account, but he was so positive that I bowed to his 

 judgment, as an older hand, and did not presume publicly to 

 dispute his determination. In the type the gills are greenish 

 gre}^, and the spores brownish, but in sadleri the gills are yellow 

 and the spores, if spores are present, were colourless. Now this 

 anoiualy was found only once, under peculiar conditions, and is 

 now universally acknowledged as a peculiar form of Hypholoma 

 fascecularis. 



The second illustration is an Agaric, which for many years I 

 considered to be the true Hypholoma lacryinahnndiis, and it was 

 figured under that name in Illustrations on plate 566. Berkeley 

 always considered and taught that it was that species, and so it 

 was regarded in this country for more than a quarter of a 

 century, but at length Dr. Plowright was the first to call it in 

 question, and demonstrate that it was only a. vanety oi Hypholoma 

 velutina with the hairs of the pileus tufted like scales. Although 

 I remained stubborn as long as I could, the time came when I 

 could resist no longer, but had to accept it as Hypholoma velutina,. 

 and admit my ignorance of the true Hypholoma lacrymabunda. 



These two demonstrated errors will exhibit m\' meaning, and 

 from this I might diverge, and point out twenty couples wduch 

 I am disposed to regard as duplicates of the one species, but 

 will forbear, until the evidence is stronger than mere suspicion. 

 It will be work for the future to prove variation, subject to 

 surrounding influences, in a number of so-called species. Mean- 

 while I may be permitted to make a suggestion or two. There 

 is a Russula called Russnla rubra, which is acrid to the taste, and 

 reputed poisonous (fig. 1025), and there is another species which 

 it would be (juite impossible to distinguish from it by external 

 features, called Russula atropurpurea (fig. 1087), ^"^ ^^^is is 

 perfectly sweet and mild, and may be eaten with impunity. If 

 these are not distinct species, what is the cause of the diflerence 

 above indicated ? Although I believe them to be one and the 



