.38 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 



present in Cantharellus is to be expected. As two investigators who 

 have observed these two groups over a period of many years, we are 

 convinced that there is a true relationship between Cantharellus and 

 Hygrophorus on this character also. We believe there is some signifi- 

 cance to the fact that Fries (1838) placed Cantharellus cinnabarinus 

 in section Hijgrocijbe of Hygrophorus. Thus, we believe that in Can- 

 tharellus we find the two major characters which define Hygropho- 

 rus. The latter differs from the former, however, in a number of im- 

 portant features. Cantharellus typically has blunt gill edges, whereas in 

 Hygrophorus they are sharp. Cantharellus shows a tendency to have 

 the lamellae narrower and more vein-like, whereas in Hygrophorus the 

 gills are well formed and typically broad. In both there is a decided 

 tendency for them to be distant. In Cantharellus the arrangement of 

 the hyphae in the gill trama is typically loosely interwoven, a feature 

 which, if accepted as primitive, could argue in favor of the species of 

 Camarophijllopsis being most closely related to Cantharellus. Spore 

 types in Cantharellus are more diverse than those found in Hygro- 

 phorus, a feature which aids in distinguishing Cantharellus as a genus. 



It is known that in the Clavariales and in Cantharellus, in general, 

 the basidium is a "stichobasidium" whereas in the Agaricales we find 

 the "chiastobasidium." We would insist that in a measure this differ- 

 ence helps to distinguish Cantharellus from Hygrophorus, but that it 

 does not mean that the latter could not have been derived from the 

 former. We should like to see a cytological study of these two genera 

 made by modern techniques to elucidate this situation since we be- 

 lieve there are fundamental similarities as far as nuclear behavior 

 and other cytological features are concerned. Pending such a study, we 

 would prefer not to emphasize cytological details in discussing this 

 problem. We would for the present rest our case on the data presented 

 in regard to the features which delimit Hygrophorus. 



If we consider the evolution within Hygrophorus on the premise 

 that the species of Camarophyllopsis are primitive and related to Can- 

 tharellus, what sort of picture do we get? In the first place, species of 

 sections Camarophyllopsis and Hygrophorus are often impossible to 

 place unless one actually examines the anatomy of the gills. This simi- 

 larity in appearance is so great that it was found necessary to change 

 the sectional name of the group with interwoven gill trama because 

 the type species, H. canmrophyllus, was actually found to have bilat- 

 eral gill trama and therefore had to be transferred to section Hygro- 

 phorus. As far as section Hygrophorus is concerned we have also 

 found, in 77. diaphanes, that it is impossible at times to distinguish spe- 

 cies of section Hygrophorus from those of section Hygroeyhe on macro- 



