



Fig. 135. 



plant was named by Berkeley, Corynites Ravenelii. It seems to be a com- 

 mon form in the eastern states but is rare in the 

 west and I have never seen it at Cincinnati but 

 once. It has the same structure as the previous 

 species Mutinus. elegans, but differs in form 

 only. Whether it is a form of Mutinus elegani 

 or a distinct species I have no opinion at prer.- 

 ent. I should be glad if the readers of Myc< >li >g- 

 ical Xotes would observe this season the forms 

 of Mutinus and advise me if they find both 

 forms in their section, or only one of them, or 

 any other information that will aid in clearing 

 up this question. I'rof. Hurt, in his recent ex- 

 cellent paper on the phalloids, has referred 

 Mutinus Ravenelii as a synonym for Mutinus 

 caninus of Europe. In this we feel quite cer- 

 tain he is mistaken. Mutinus caninus will be 

 considered and illustrated in our next issue. It 

 has a structure quite different from the speci- 

 mens of Mutir.us Ravenelii. The gleba bearing 

 portion of the plant is very short, abruptly con- 

 tracted, formed of small cells, quite different 

 from the large cells of the stem of the plant. 

 The gleln is definitely limited to this portion of^ 

 the plant and is a thick layer, so at first sight the plant appears to have' 

 a cap or pileus. \Yhen Berkeley described Corynites Ravenelii he 

 specially pointed out that the receptacle is uniform in its cellular 

 structure and the gleba is not definitely limited, and on this diffeivnre 

 from the structure of Mutinus caninus he based the genus Corynites.: 

 Prof. Burt. in his paper, correctly gives the structural characters ofl 

 Mutinus caninus and he is a very careful observer and records the 

 species frequent with him. We have received a specimen of Mutinus 

 caninus from James Fletcher. Canada, hence we have in the United 

 States, I think, three species or forms of Mutinus. viz: Mutinus ele-j 

 gans, Mutinus Ravenelii. and Mutinus caninus. I should be glad to* 

 receive any specimens or information that will throw light on the sub- 

 ject. It is quite evident from Ravencl's herbarium at the British 

 Museum that he did not consider the shape (as we have in this paper) 

 as the character of Mutinus Ravenelii. His type specimen "Xo. 888" 

 (concerning which he writes a long letter insisting that it is the "true 

 type") is club shaped, but his sketch that accompanies it is the shape -if 

 the plant that in this paper we have called Mutinus elegans. 



CONCLUSIONS. We expect to continue in the succeeding 

 numbers of Mycological Xotes a consideration of the phalloicl subject 

 until the leading species are considered and illustrated. We shall be 

 very glad to receive from our friends and correspondents any notes, 

 specimens (dry or alcoholic), photographs, or information that may 

 aid in the work. We append a list of the dried specimens that have 



300 



