pra eE cem n» asi 
however are in any way dangerous.— Fig. 
* 
NEW PUBLICATIONS. 211 
Tab. 40. 4. comatus, Müll. Bad representation of Coprinus co- 
matus, Fr. 
Tab. 41. 4. amarus, Bull. Bright green gills, perhaps 4. fasci- 
cularis, Huds. 
Tab. 42. A. Psittacinus, Scheff. The yellow and green tints point 
to Hygrophorus psittacinus, Fr., but the plate is far more like a large 
form of Agaricus incanus, Fr. 
Tab. 43. A. “ sulphureus," Bull. This species has a solid stem,— 
here it is shown very hollow all the way up, leaving only a thin bark 
as in some Coprini. 
Tab. 44. A. aureus, with gills snowy white instead of brown. 
Tab. 45. 4. coccineus, Wulf. Very unlike Hygrophorus coccineus, 
Fr., or the “ changeable scarlat Agaric.” 
Tab. 46. “Fungo detto Ammazzamogli.” Perhaps 4. rachodes, 
Vitt. 
Tab. 47. Cantharellus, Merulius, Hydnum, Verpa, Clavaria. All 
very unsatisfactory. Hydnum, absurd. 
Tab. 48. Fig. 1. Polyporus lucidus. Bad.—Fig. 9. P. Juglandis, 
DBull.— P. squamosus, Fr. Absurd.—Fig. 3. P. versicolor, P. Absurd. 
Tab. 49. P. “ sulphureus,” Fries. Not quite so bad as the others. 
Tab. 50. Boletus marmoreus— B. satanas ? 
Tab. 51. Fig. 1. Boletus cyanescens, Bull. Perhaps right.—Fig. 2, 
9. B. satanas. Ditto, but the colouring is absurd in all the figures. 
ab. 52. Fig. 1. B. pernicosus (P)—Fig. 2. B. piperatus, Bull. 
Right!!! but we do not term it * Papper Boletus" in England.—Fig. 
3. ** Boleto Punteruolo Malefico" (?). This plate has not got its five 
figures numbered. 
ab. 53. Fig. 1. B. chrysenteron — B. subtomentosus, Bull. Neither 
i B. annulatus= B. luteus, 
L., or the “ Dingi Yellow Boletus.” —Fig. 3. B. felleus, Bull. Right! 
Fig. 4. B. cinereus, P. (?). 
Tab. 54. Fig. 1. B. olivaceus, Scheeff. (?). Fig. 2. B. calopus, P. 
This dingy figure is totally unlike the splendid Boletus it is referred to. 
Tab. 55. Phallus impudicus, Linn. A laughable caricature, evi- 
dently drawn from memory (a very treacherous one). 
Tab. 56. Clathrus cancellatus, L. Almost as bad as the last. 
= 
