L. ROMELL, HYMENOMYCETES OF LAPPLAND. 5 
(aeruginea”, chamaeleontina*, consobrina?, decolorans”, delica”, 
elatior^, flava”, fragilis®, graveolens?,  integra?,  puellaris 
possible to make a thorough study of the genus Russula, which alone would 
have required all the time. I must therefore leave several of the collections 
out of account for the present. The study of this genus, hard in itself, is ren- 
dered still more difficult by the fact that the spores generally change their 
color when drying, so that spores which are chalk-white in the fresh state 
often become nearly sulphurous or creamy after drying, and so on. This is 
the more inconvenient, as the exact spore color is one of the most important 
characters for distinguishing the species. It is therefore quite necessary to 
collect a sufficient thick layer of spores from the fresh plant and to note the 
exact color of that layer before drying. The omission of such a precaution 
will often lead to trouble and confusion. 
*% At Katterat, Vassijokk, Björkliden, Pessijokk and Torneträsk. — The 
older name »heterophylla» used in my Obs. Myc. is unsuitable for this species, 
as the gills are only seldom inequal in length. The younger name »cruginea» 
is not very apt either, as the green color is not properly that of verdigris. In 
Lappland the greenish color was almost always quite faded out and substi- 
tuted by whitish, at least in specimens growing above the tree limit. QUELET, 
who has seen colored drawings of specimens from Stockholm belonging to 
this plant, referred it to R. graminicolor, R. palumbina and R. mollis, while 
BRESADOLA interprets it as R. grisea PERS. — Though the color varies within 
wide limits, I never saw it olivaceous as in RICKEN t. 16. fig. 2 (»graminicolor »), 
which, if correctly reproduced, probably represents another plant; his t. 18. 
fig. I (»grisea») may belong here, but the gills are too dark. — The nearest 
allied species is R. cyanoxantha, which differs especially in having some of the 
gills short. Both have creamy (not white) spore powder. — If the name 
»heterophylla» is to be used at all, it should be applied to the species agreeing 
with FRIES” description and well represented by Vırr. t. 27 (though the gills 
are too broad in fig. 5) and Bres. Fungh. Mang. t. 71. — RICKEN's R. hetero- 
phylla, which is said to have »blass» spores, can not be the true one, but his 
RH. cyanoxantha is probably identical with Fries’ R. heterophylla, which has 
pure white spore powder. Both R. cyanoxantha and heterophylla occur in seve- 
ral varieties of color, but all varieties of cyanoxantha have creamy spore pow- 
der and all varieties of the plant which should be considered as the true R. 
heterophylla (R. virescens, in my Obs. Myc.) have chalk-white spore powder. 
In Fries’ works the synonyms of these two species are confused and R. eru- 
ginea and R. vesca are mixed in, and hence the perpetual confusion in nearly 
all recent works. 
*4 At Torneträsk (var. rosea and var. griseolilacina). — At present I am 
inclined to take this species in a collective sense so as to comprise for instance 
R. Postiana, R. Turci and allied varieties. The name is well adapted for such 
a use. And these allied forms or varieties seem to touch or go over into each 
other in such a manner that it would be difficult if not impossible in some in- 
stances to draw a distinct limit between them. — By the new method of study 
inaugurated by Marre it may be possible sometimes to find distinguishing 
differences also between forms or varieties otherwise impossible or very diffi- 
cult to separate, and from a pure scientific view such a study will apparently 
be of great value. But even if in that way there may be afforded sufficient 
reason for considering as distinct species two or more varieties, which without 
the use of such means must be regarded as belonging to one and the same spe- 
cies, I think it will be more practical to use a common specific name in such an 
instance, and to subordinate to the same as subspecies or varieties those forms 
which only by means of chemicals or by a subtile microscopic study of the 
spore surface or the like can be demonstrated as really distinct. Else it will 
hardly be possible for an ordinary student or botanist to consider at all other 
genera than those belonging to his own speciality. With regard to fleshy 
fungi and other plants which on account of economie or other value are likely 
