NOTES ON FUNGI, FORESTAL AND OTHERS. 133 



I fancy that pi. no cannot properly be referred to Clitocyhe senilis, 

 although the Rev. M. J. Berkeley considered it to be so. Certainly it is far 

 from the type. 



Co//y6;Vi /«//(T, Schft., was found at High Beach, Epping Forest in 1880, 

 but has never yet been recorded as British. I made drawings ]of it, at the 

 time, which may be published some day.' 



The little Agarics attached to a yellow sclerotium, published as Collybia 

 cirrhata, are doubtless also Collybia tuberosa, as no sclerotium is attached to 

 C. cirrhata, therefore the whole of plate 144 is tuberosa. 



A curious Agaric was figured at the bottom of pi. 422 under the name of 

 Agaricus {Pliiteus) phlebophurus, variety reticiilatus, which is not a Pluteus at all 

 but a species of Entoloma, which has been named Entoloma cookei by a French- 

 man and doubtless he is nearer the truth. 



The fungu.-; figured on plate 317 and called Entoloma jiibata is not that 

 species, although it somewhat resembles it, but should be called Entoloma 

 porphyrophcea. 



I don't know what to say about Ag. (Entoloma) bloxami figured on plate 

 327, but I strongly suspect that it does not differ from Agaricus madidus, Fries. 



When I first found the species which is figured on pi. 354, I sent a draw- 

 ing and fresh specimens to Fries, asking him if it was not a slender form of 

 Ag. terrigenus but in reply, he informed me that it was not his species, but a 

 new one which he should call Ag. (Pholiota) cookei, and it was figured under 

 that name. Afterwards I found the specimens figured on pi. 349 at Ching- 

 ford, and these I called Ag. tcrrigenus. Anyone comparing the two plates will 

 I think come to the conclusion that both are really the same species, notwith- 

 standing the slight differences. 



As far as I can make out, my original suspicion has been confirmed and 

 endorsed, that Pholiota comosa and P. heteroclita at least, as far as we know 

 them, are but two names for the same species. Compare plates 366 and 600. 



Somehow the names of Ag. fimiputris and A . pJialasnarum got exchanged on 

 the plates, so that they need correcting. 



Although I am jumping from one end of the book to the other in these 

 remarks, I must not forget to call attention to what is now called .imanitopsis 

 vagiiiata, which is very common in the Epping Forest. There are three very 

 well marked forms, the most common being of a greyish colour, and has been 

 named livida. I have eaten this and found it to be very delicate and diges- 

 tible. The same can be said of the more scarce white variety, the nivalis of 

 Greville. The last of the three forms is bright brown, and has been known 

 both as spadicea and fusca. This is, I consider, entitled to rank as a distinct 

 species I tried to eat it once, and I do not intend to try it again, and I am 

 bound io caution all persons concerned that it is not good to eat. For this, 

 as well as other reasons I suggest that we should mark the difference in future, 

 by calling the brown form Amanitopsis fusca. 



There are two species of Hygrophorus figured, one of them called //. latus 

 (pi. 938) and the other H. honghtoni (pi. 936), but I cannot find any difference 

 between them. It has not been uncommon in Epping Forest, whichever 

 name has been given, but I think that H. honghtoni must be dropped. 

 I See description of this species by Dr. Cooke, ante., page 127.— Er, 



