THE GASTROMYCETES OF SCHWEINITZ'S 

 HERBARIUM. 



During a recent visit I made to Schweinitz's herbarium, I studied 

 his specimens of Gastromycetes very carefully with reference to his 

 published determinations. I had previously worked with them, but it 

 was when I first began with the Gastromycetes, and I feel in much 

 better position to pass on them now than at the time of my former 

 visit. 



The following is a complete account of the specimens preserved 

 in the herbarium, using the names as found in Schweinitz's published 

 list: 



Of the phalloicls, only Phallus indusiatus and Phallus duplicatus exist. 

 Both are in too poor a condition to pass an opinion on, but a veil can only be 

 plainly seen on the former. 



Tuber cibarium is only represented by a fragment from Europe. 



Rhizopogon albus is Rhizopogon luteolus. Rhizopogon virens is very scan- 

 tily represented, and Rhizopogon aestivus is probablv not a Rhizopogon. 



Nidularia striata is Cyatbus striatus. Nidularia campanulata, Nidularia 

 Crucibulnm, Nidularia juglandicola, and Nidularia scutellaris are all the same 

 plant Crucibulum vulgare. Nidularia stercorea, Nidularia rnelanospernm, and 

 Nidularia lugisperma are all Cyathus stercoreus. Nidularia fascicularis is 

 Cyathus vernicosus. There are no specimens of Nidularia pulvinata in the col- 

 lection but one from Lusatia (labeled Nidularia farcta), which is, without doubt, 

 the same thing, viz. : Nidularia pisiformis. 



Arachnion album, a nice type, as now well known. 



The next thirteen species in Schweinitz's list, with the exception of 

 Sphaerobolus stellatns (which is correct), are none of them nowadays held to 

 belong to the Gastromycetes. Only half of them are now represented in the 

 herbarium. 



Elaphomyces cervinutn and Sclerodernia spadiceum are both Elaphomyces, 

 I judge, but as to the species I can not say, as I am not informed as to the 

 Tuberaceae. 



Scleroderma citrinum and Sclerodernia verrucosum are both Sclerodernia 

 aurantium. Scleroderma Cepa and Scleroderma polyrhizon are both Sclerodernia 

 Cepa. Scleroderma Lycoperdioides is not represented, and I have always sus- 

 pected, from the description, that it is the common species which we now kr.ow 

 as Scleroderma tenerum. As I become more familiar with this species, I am 

 more convinced that it was the plant Schweinitz had, but unfortunately there is 

 no specimen to confirm it. 



" Uperrhiza Boscii" there is no specimen. I think no one knows what 

 plant Bosc figured under the name. 



Mitremyces lutescens there are four specimens on the sheet. One, a young 

 specimen, full of spores; the other three have the peridia broken away, and are 

 little more than rooting bases. The young specimen is, externally, typically 

 Mitremyces Ravenelii, and the spores confirm it. On scraping the broken plants, 

 I obtained the same oblong spores, and I am assured now that the plants are all 

 Mitremyces Ravenelii. Schweinitz was so clear in his writings that I can not 

 but feel he had a correct knowledge of Mitremyces lutescens, notwithstanding 

 the contradictory evidence of his herbarium, and, it will readily be seen, that I 

 would have good grounds to juggle the accepted definitions of the Mitremyces 

 species on the evidence of Schweinitz's herbarium, if I were so disposed. Mitre- 

 myces cinnabarinus is typically that plant. 



Actinodermium Sterrebeckii is Sclerrderma Geaster. 



Geaster pectinatus is doubtfully correct. The endoperidium is not enough 

 pedicellate. More probably, I think it is an old specimen of Geaster Archeni, 





395 



