267. Favolus alveolarius. This is the common Favolus europaeus, al- 

 ways misreferred by Berkeley to "Favolus Boucheanus" (which is a Poly- 

 porus), and the Schweinitzian reference is also an error, as the old Bosc 

 illustration on which the name is based is a crude figure of Polyporus 

 arcularius. 



268. Favolus abnormalis. No specimen preserved. 

 Lentinus Nos. 269 to 277, not a specimen preserved. 



278. Cantharellus aurantiacus. Specimen poor. 



279. Cantharellus cibarius. Specimen correct. 



280. Cantharellus tubaeformis. Specimen correct. 



281. Cantharellus lutescens. Specimen correct. 



282. Cantharellus cinereus. Specimen poor, but correct. 



283. Cantharellus cornucopioides. Specimen correct as Craterellus now. 



284. Cantharellus odoratus This rare species, which Schweinitz records 

 as having collected once only, is represented by a fairly good specimen. 

 It is an evident Craterellus, as Berkeley states. There are better speci- 

 mens at Kew. I do not know it otherwise. 



285. Cantharellus roseus. No specimen preserved. 



286. Cantharellus cinnabarinus. No specimens, but the plant is common 

 and well known under Schweinitz's name. 



287. Cantharellus floccosa. Good specimen, as now well known. It is 

 our largest species of Cantharellus. and does not occur in Europe. I have, 

 however, a specimen from Japan. 



288. Cantharellus helossoides. No specimen preserved. 



289. Cantharellus crispus. Specimen correct. As Trogia now. 



290. Cantharellus iiicarnatus. Specimen correct as Merulius and the 

 finest species of Merulius that occurs. It is a beautiful plant when fresh. 

 Berkeley incorrectly refers Schweinitz' species to Merulius tremellosus, our 

 most common species, which Schweinitz records in his Fung. Car., but over- 

 looks in his second list. Peck has renamed Schweinitz's species Merulius 

 rubellus. 



291. Cantharellus confluens. It is Merulius Corium. 



292. v Cantharellus spathularia. Specimen correct as Guepinia. 



293. Cantharellus Cupressi. This is not a fungus, but an insect gall 

 (cfr. Myc. Notes, page 497). I found it abundantly in Florida recently, and 

 it simulates a Cyphella so closely that Schweinitz can hardly be blamed 

 for mistaking it for a fungus. When fresh it is white, but old specimens 

 are dark reddish. 



294. Cantharellus muscigenus. Specimen poor. 



295. Cantharellus fissilis. No specimen preserved. 



296. Cantharellus muscorum. No specimen preserved. 



297. Cantharellus tenellus. I do not know it, but think more prob- 

 ably a Pleurotus. The gills are too well developed for Cantharellus. 



298. Cantharellus cupularis. Specimen poor. 



299. Cantharellus fasciculatus. No specimen preserved. 



.300. Cantharellus olivaceus. This name should be restored as Paxillus. 

 It is what Berkeley named Paxillus Curtisii, and what Peck has always so 

 determined. Atkinson recently discovered that it was a "new species," 

 and published a fine photograph of it under the name Paxillus corrugatus. 



301. Cantharellus riridus. No specimen preserved. 

 3 



