i82 



(Gardeners' Chronicle, October, l8?fl.) 



As the author of the work in question, perhaps I may be permitted to 

 offer a few observations on Professor Fries' letter. I will do so in connection 

 with the review which lately appeared in your columns, which, it is no secret, 

 came from the pen of a botanist only second in his knowledge of Fungi to Fries 

 himself. 



I make no claim to originality in the work, for the scheme is more or 

 less foreshadowed in Fries' works. The genera, subgenera, and species of the 

 Agaricini may be compared with the pieces of a huge and intricate puzzle ; of 

 these pieces half are lost or unknown, the rest are almost inextricably dis- 

 arranged and mixed up together. Now the problem is, how to set up these 

 confused and imperfect pieces in such order as to show one continuous and per- 

 fect design. Fries has done this with some success, and all I claim is, to have 

 made out one or two missing pieces, and to have re-arranged, with some trifling 

 modifications, one or two others. These modifications, I consider, make the pat- 

 tern clearer than heretofore, and it will be observed that neither Prof. Fries nor 

 your reviewer dissent from my general idea. 



I will now briefly remark on the observations of Prof. Fries, and on those 

 printed in your columns in detail. First, as to the new subgenus Hiatula. 

 The publication of this I overlooked, but I foresaw its position, and the only 

 blank space on plate 1, to quote Fries' own words, "is well filled by it." 

 Moreover, at p. 5 of my work there is a note respecting an Agaric which 

 exactly fills this position. It is remarkable to me that this subgenus, its ana- 

 logue Pilosace and Chamseota, are all foreign. It is my conviction, when foreign 

 countries have been well searched, that every position of my scheme will be filled 

 in. As it is, Fries suggests the filling of three additional positions. 



Fries next says, that the resupinate species should be excluded from 

 Pleurotus. As he has invariably included them himself, he can only be under- 

 stood to suggest the formation of a new subgenus for their reception. To 

 this I can see no objection, neither does it affect my arrangement in the 

 slightest degree. Your reviewer says, under Pleurotus, that A. euosmus has no 

 affinity with A. variabilis ; this I grant, but neither has it any affinity with A. 

 mitis or A. acerosus amongst the Leucospori, where it was formerly placed. A. 

 popinalis is associated with the Hyporhodii, but its spores are whiter than 

 those of A. euosmus. 



Fries says he is not able to refer A. echinatus to the Hyporhodii ; your 

 reviewer says he approves of keeping it distinct, as it connects Lepiota with 

 Psalliota ; this latter was my reason for removing it, i.e., not so much on ac- 

 count of the spores not being purple-brown, but because the plant was ex- 

 actly intermediate in position between Lepiota and Psalliota. It is true that the 

 spores in Lepiota change colour in the dried plant, as stated by your reviewer, 

 but this is only because the spores become tinged with the juices of the plant, 

 and not because they change in themselves. I have spores of most of the 



