276 



never be confounded by even a young mycologist, without smelling it, to 

 anything else. Within the past ten years we have occasionally had specimens of 

 B. fatens which had no fcetid odour (a fact which might be accounted for), but on 

 the contrary were positively fragrant, as strong and as pleasant as the odour of 

 Agaricus odorus, from which the odour could not be distinguished. This was 

 corroborated this year in Epping Forest by Mr. Massee, where he remarked the 

 same phenomenon. Apt-opos of odour, we encountered on one occasion a specimen 

 of Phallus impudicus from which all the slimy green matter had disappeared, and 

 all that was left was nearly as white as ivory and of a most pleasant odour, 

 reminding one strongly of violets. Exception has been taken to this fact, when 

 the circumstance has been alluded to, and although we have suffered under the 

 imputation of "drawing the long bow" for fifteen years at least (when this 

 experience was encountered), it will perhaps one day be admitted, by those who 

 think they know everything that is possible for Nature to accomplish, that there 

 really was once such a miracle performed as a Phallus with the odour of violets, 

 as well as Russula fwtens resembling anise. 



Odour must, therefore, always have some latitude, more especially those 

 odours, the appreciation of which, like that of female beauty, resides so much in 

 the nose and eyes of the spectator. There is hardly any odour associated with 

 fungi, good, bad, or indifferent, in which more than two persons can be found at 

 the same time to agree. Nearly all will admit the odour, bnt not the same odour. 

 For example, there is an odour prevalent amongst Lactarii. Let anyone put it 

 to the test. No. 1 says "odour of bugs," No. 2 says '"fenugrec," No. 3 says 

 "Ligusticum," No. 4 says " empyreumatic," No. 5 says '•camphor," No. 6 

 diluted " assafsetida," and so on through a considerable range of obscure odours, 

 but never more than about two will accord in ascribing to them the same odour. If 

 in odour, so also in taste, even more than odour, there must be catholicity. 

 Russula rubra is very acrid, no doubt about it, when in a really prime condition. 

 Then even the most inveterate smoker will confess it a thorough "pick me up" 

 for its pungency. How, then, can we explain the fact that at Breinton some 

 years since, and at Epping Forest this year, a Russula precisely identical in all 

 external features, and those of a remarkable character, should to the taste prove 

 as mild and pleasant as a new filbert. It improves the case very little to say that 

 the mild Russula was figured by Kromljholz, and called Russula atropurpurea, 

 which Fries included as a variety of Russula Integra at one time, and at another 

 hinted at as a mild aberrant Russula emetica. Must taste go for nothing ? 

 Certainly that is not our opinion. But it should hardly supersede every and all 

 other features. Here is a case in point. Is Russula atropurpurea only a mild 

 form of the acrid Russula rubra, with which it appears to accord in everything 

 but taste, or are the two to be maintained as distinct upon the faith of one sole 

 and single character? Let each be persuaded in his own mind, all we desire to 

 contend for is this, that for the sake of the inexperienced mycologist, both of the 

 present and future, such anomalies should not be ignored, but placed upon record, 

 either as forms or varieties. As a general rule the distinctions " mild " and 

 " acrid " hold fairly well both in Lactarius and Russula, and, we think, are as 



