is in the British Museum. It is not I think a form of aurantiacus as stated, 

 as the pileus is much more strongly reticulate. The "calyptra" appears to me 

 to be a mass, of gleba covering the upper part of the pileus and not a portion 

 of the volva as stated. In any event it is surely accidental in this specimen and 

 not a specific character. Only one specimen was collected or is known. 



PHALLUS QUADRICOLOR (Fig. 7). This also is based on a single 

 specimen and a sketch from Bailey, which are now in the British Museum. I 

 have a strong suspicion that it was a specimen of Phallus multicolor that had 

 accidentally lost its veil. It is at least curious that the color notes of the 

 collection are identically the same as to both species : "pileus orange, stipe 

 lemon-yellow, volva white, mycelium purple." When a species of Phallus with 

 a veil accidentally loses its veil (as specimens often do) it becomes in modern 

 nomenclature another genusi. 



PHALLUS DISCOLOR (Fig. 8). This is based on a plant from Australia 

 and was illustrated by Kalchbrenner. If it was correctly illustrated it differs 

 from all other phalloids in having a pileus-like apex adnate at the base to 

 the top of the stem. It was described as Phallus aurantiacus, var. discolor, and 

 changed by Fischer to "Mutinus? discolor." The doubtful mark was well 

 placed. It is neither a Phallus nor a Mutinus if it is correctly shown. There 

 are, however, many "ifs" to be considered when it comes to Kalchbrenner's 

 work. I doubt much if any such phalloid ever grew. 



PHALLUS RETUSUS (Fig. 9). This is also Kalchbrenner's work, which 

 when figured and described he erected into a new genus Omphalophallus because 

 he states the pileus is imperforate. Fischer, who has examined specimens at 

 Berlin, states this is all Kalchbrenner's imagination (or words to that effect) 

 and that the opening is covered with a fragment of the volva, hence Kalch- 

 brenner did not find it. Fischer also states that Phallus Muellerianus (or 

 rather "Omphalophallus Muelleriana") is the same plant and that both are 

 better referred as an obese form of Phallus aurantiacus. From Kalchbrenner's 

 figure the latter does not seem to me to be possible. 



PHALLUS RUBICUNDUS. An American species has been recorded in 

 Australia. As previously stated I do not know what the exact difference is 

 between this species and Phallus aurantiacus and I suspect they will prove to 

 be the same. Nor have I seen any specimens from Australia as obese as the 

 American form. 



THE GENUS MUTINUS. This genus does not have a sep- 

 arate pileus at the apex of the stem as in the genus Phallus. On the 

 contrary the gleba is borne directly on the upper portion of the stem. 

 One species, Mutinus caninus, is common in Europe, but little or 

 nothing is known as to the species in Australia. At Kew there are 

 but two collections. 



MUTINUS CURTUS (Fig. 10). This is based on a single 

 collection made sixty years ago by Drummond. It impresses me as 

 being based on undeveloped plants. A figure was given by Corda 

 (Fig. 10), but I think was largely imaginary, and I can see no war- 

 rant for the lobed volva r.r. shown in the figure. 



MUTINUS PENTAGONUS (Fig. n). At Kew there are a 

 couple of specimens in Cooke's herbarium labeled "Mutinus penta- 

 gonus, Bailey, Mutinus sulcatus, C. & M." I think it is not "Mutinus 



