275 



ever encounters a difficulty of that sort, but when you ask "What Russula? " then 

 you are face to face with the "cardinal sin." It is the determination of the species of 

 Iiussi.da that puzzles the best of us. And why ? Because of the absence of broad 

 distinctive features which assist so much in other groups. There are no csespitose 

 species, for all are solitary. There are no lignicolous species, for all are 

 terrestrial. There are no squamose or scaly species, for all are more or less 

 smooth. Hence the characters by which one species may be distingiiished from 

 another in other groups are in this reduced to a minimum, so that they have to be 

 supplemented by other and new distinctions which jirevail here, but are not 

 recognized, or but faintly elsewhere. Another cause of difficulty, to my mind, 

 exists in the undue limitation of species or varieties. It is of no consequence 

 whether one regards them as species, and another as varieties, the thing needed is 

 a definite isolation of distinct forms, so that any species or individual met with 

 can, without difficulty, be set in its proper place. The species recognized by 

 Fries may all be good enough species as he understood them, but his diagnoses are 

 often too general and embrace too much for ordinary use. The average mycologist 

 requires more than the diagnoses of Fries will give. In some instances, perhaps, 

 the species will cover only a reasonable range, such as Russula fcUea, Russula 

 sanguinea, Russula lutca, Russula nigricans, and Russula depallens, with some 

 others, but constantly individuals are met with, such as those named recently, as 

 Russula BarlcE, Russula pxinctata, Russula granulosa, Russula drimeia, which 

 would puzzle anyone who attempted to place them under the species of Fries. 

 No alternative exists, as it seems to us, but to increase the number of recognized 

 forms if the identification of Russula is to be accomplished with anything like 

 success by the average mycologist. Let it not be understood that we advocate an 

 indiscriminate manufacture of new species, we would recommend that only such 

 individuals should be referred to a species as the description will fairly cover, and 

 that forms aberrant from these should be clearly recognized and indicated by 

 definite names. 



Here it may be inquired : what are the features to be taken into account 

 in the characterization of species in the genus Russula ? Perhaps on the answer to 

 this question the gist of the subject depends. There could be no objection to 

 take one of the diagnoses of Fries and accept that as sufficient indication of the 

 characters to be recognized. Bear in mind that we state expressly one of the 

 " diagnoses " of Fries, leaving out all question as to the individuals which those 

 diagnoses have hitherto been made to cover, because they have been made to 

 cover at least twenty fairly good species, which have lately been separated, and 

 may possibly include as many more. The characters seem to be the following, as 

 they stand in Fries : — Taste — pileus, form and character (Fries always has 

 excluded colour from the diagnosis of the pileus)— cuticle — margin — stem, without 

 and within — gills — form, attachment, and colour — and in some instances odour. 

 Taking first for comment taste, and odour. It may be urged that these should be 

 regarded as accessory, rather than principal, or at least applied with judgment, 

 and not absolutely. Because there is no more foetid a species than R. foetens, 

 and no species so unmistakable, it remains without dispute that R. fwtcns would 



