edge of flo^i'cring plants, was reflected in the acceptance of his names for fungi 

 (of which he knew very little), and it was many years before the errors introduced 

 by Linnaeus in the nomenclature of mycology were eradicated. 1 



Professor Fischer divides the genus Phallus into two genera, Ithyphallus 

 and Dictyophora, and the basis of the division is the presence or absence of 

 a conspicuous veil. If the genus Phallus were a large genus, it might be a con- 

 venient division, 2 though in truth I think the only difference is in the degree of 

 development of the veil, as all species probably have at least rudimentary veils. 

 Ithyphallus is a generic name, recently proposed for Phallus impudicus', as it 

 had always previously been known. The name Ithyphallus is based on the 

 absence of veil (not entirely correct) and attributed to Fries (not at all cor- 

 rect). 3 Dictyophora is applied to that section of Phallus which has conspicuous 

 veils. 4 As previously stated, we think all of the genus Phallus have veils, 

 though variously developed. Phallus impudicus has a veil, rudimentary though 

 very evident if it is sought for; Phallus Ravenelii has a veil hidden under the 

 cup usually, sometimes protruding; others (Phallus indusiatus and Phallus dupli- 

 catus) have long, conspicuous veils. 



PHALLUS IMPUDICUS (Plate 114). This is the most com- 

 mon phalloid in Europe, and was the species originally known. It 

 is widely distributed in Europe, and I have collected it abundantly 

 n France/"' I think it usually develops during the night, at least all 

 he "eggs" I brought in so developed, and 1 never saw a partially 

 developed plant in the woods. The stipe is pure white, hollow, com- 

 Dosed of large cells. Within the volva at the base it is tapering, and 

 s inserted in a little cup seated within the volva, which is shown in 

 mr Plate 114, Fig. 4. There is a rudimentary veil, fragments of which 

 ire seen adhering to the stipe on Figs. 1 and 2, Plate 114. The volva 

 s white, and contains a little shallow cup or secondary volva as shown 

 n our figure. The pileus is deeply reticulate, rugulose, as shown in 



i It would be well if modern "priorists" who show a disposition to dig up these 

 Id errors and base their "new combinations" on them would bear in mind that 

 >riority is not always truth. Recently an American mycologist (I am sorry to say) 

 iroposed scores of "new combinations" and the only basis he had for his work was 

 he fact that Linnaeus did not know enough mycology to tell a Tremella from a 

 edar apple. 



I -2 The characters to form a genus are of course a matter of individual opinion 

 nd largely a matter of convenience. A small genus like Phallus should show very 

 narked and positive differences if it is divided, while a large genus, such as 

 Lgaricus, for instance, can be advantageously broken up on much less differences. 

 I 3 The main discrepancy in attributing this name to Fries is the fact that he 

 lever used it as a name for any plant. He called the genus Phallus and this 

 becies he called "P. impudicus" and "P" stands for Phallus. It is true he divided 

 he genus into four tribes, one of which he called Ithyphallus. but that is no 

 f arrant for raising all these tribes to generic rank and sinking the original generic 

 lame. In a large genus like Agaricus this may be advisable because the name has 

 teen applied to so many plants that it has lost all generic meaning, as these plants 

 re now known. But that is not the case with Phallus. If modesty was the reason 

 i-Jvanced for changing the name, we might sympathize with the object at least, 

 tat we can see no improvement in that respect in adopting the name Ithyphallus. 

 I 4 The first species known was Phallus indusiatus which is widely spread in 

 jopical countries. It was so named and well-figured by Ventenat in 1798. Desvaux 

 : mted up a lot of pictures that looked strange to him and proposed "new genera" 

 hi them. He saw Ventenat's picture though he knew nothing of the plant and 

 Hive it an entirely new name Dictyophora phalloidea. Nees von Esenbeck eight 

 [jars later did very much the same thing, calling the genus Hymenophallus, but 

 1 1* had enough consideration for the source of his information to use the specific 

 . j,me indusiatus. Those who subsequently wrote systematically on phalloids, i< nes 

 ,<:id Schlechtendal, used the name Hymenophallus (at least as a tribe) and it had 

 |Vcome fairly established when F'ischer dug up Desvaux's name Dictyophora. 

 lischer changed the current of usage, and the name Dictyophora is generally now 

 Jpployed. and for that reason we would employ it if we felt there was any 

 Bcessity for the genus. 



)i -, I have never seen any other phalloid so frequently as I found Phallus 

 lipudicus at Barbizon, France. It grew in light, sandy soil, usually in the woods 

 fcund logs. Rarely a day passed that I did not either see or smell specimens. 



327 



