218 



List of Fungi, mostly Hymenoraycetes, found in the 

 neighbourhood of Roxburgh, and hitherto unrecorded 

 from the District of the Club. By Rev. David Paul, 

 M.A., Roxburgh. 



1. Agaricus {Tricholoma) virgatus Fr. — Rather uBCommon, 

 hut easily mistaken for terreus, to which it has a superficial 

 resemblance. In woods ; Rutherford; Sept. 1889. 



2. Ag. {Mijcena) ammoniacus Fr. — Not uncommon. 



3. Ag. {Pholiota) aureus Matt. — I found three or four 

 specimens of this very handsome fungus growing on the ground 

 among grass at Stitchill in Oct. 1890. I had seen it only once 

 before, a specimen found near Damfries, and exhibited at the 

 Fungus Show there in 1883, and since figured in Cooke's 

 Illustrations, No. 346. In my specimens the upper part of the 

 stem and the ring, both externally and internally, were densely 

 covered with furfuraceous scurf, and the ring was thickly 

 powdered with the spores. The apparent bulb at the base of 

 the stem, caused by the mycelium binding the soil together into 

 a ball, was well marked. Those I found agreed well with 

 Cooke's figure of the var. Eeri'fordensis (lUustr. No. 347) but 

 were more regular in outline. In Hist. Ber. Club, 1863, p. 25, 

 Mr A. Jerdon has already recorded Ag. aureus as " frequent " in 

 the Jedburgh neighbourhood, but he is certainly referring to 

 Ag. spevtabilis Fr., for aureus is not frequent anywhere in the 

 kingdom, and it never grows ou stumps, as he says it does. 

 Moreover spectahilis always grows on stumps, and he must have 

 seen it often, yet he omits it from his list, evidently confounding 

 it with the rare aureus. It seems that he fell into the mistake 

 through following Berkeley, who appears also to have mixed up 

 aureus with spectahilis in his Outlines of British Fungology, for 

 he says of aureus, that it grows " on stumps," and that it is " not 

 uncommon,'' and he does not mention spectahilis at all. Now he 

 must have often seen spectahilis, and the probability is that at 

 the date of the publication of his Outlines, he took it for aureus^ 

 and that Mr Jerdou, who corresponded with him, fell into the 

 same error. I know spectahilis well, and the Stitchill plants were 

 quite distinct from it, and were certainly true aureus. Fries in 

 his Monographia says. Cum hie nohilissimus fungus meteoricus et 

 raro ohvius, scepius commutatus prcecipue cum Ag. spectahili. 



