44 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 



any real progress in comparing the European Hydrophorus flora with 

 that of North America on a firsthand basis. 



In the "Material Studied," for each species, we have indicated for 

 each collection the name of the state or other political unit where the 

 specimens originated, the name of the collector, and when available, 

 the herbarium number or the collector's own number. 



We have included in our study the Hygrophori reported by Dennis 

 (1953) from Trinidad, cognizant that this island is regarded as be- 

 longing to South America. It is just possible that the species from 

 Trinidad may subsequently be found in the West Indies proper or in 

 Florida, or other Gulf States. 



DOUBTFUL AND EXCLUDED SPECIES 



Camarophyllus alboumbonatus Murr., Mycologia 3: 195. 1911. 



This is a Rhodophylhis (Entoloma, perhaps E. cuspidatum Pk.). 

 The spores of the type are 12-15 X 12-13 n, angular, 4-5 sided. Murrill 

 has, in sequence, placed it in Hygrocybe, then Hygrophorus, and fi- 

 nally Camarophyllus (see Murrill, 1916, p. 290). 



Hygrophorus aurantiacoluteus B. & C, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Ill (4): 

 293. 1859. 



The type at Kew showed no spores and was unsatisfactory for 

 study. 



Hygrophorus bellus Massee, Jour. Bot. 30: 161. 1892. 



We have been unable to study the type which was collected on 

 the Island of St. Vincent, West Indies. Its colors and unusually large 

 spores distinguish it. Murrill (1911) places it in Hydrocybe. 



Hygrophorus fimbriatophyllus KaufL, Papers Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts 

 and Letters 5: 131. 1925. 



The type is of no value, and the name should be discarded. It is 

 called Tricholomopsis fimbriatophyllus (Kauff. ) Singer, in Lilloa 22: 

 196. 1951. 



Hygrophorus graciae Sumstine, Mycologia 33: 19. 1941. 



An examination of the type at the Carnegie Museum shows this 

 to be Entoloma cuspidatum Pk. 



Hygrophorus haematccephalus B. & C, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. II (12): 

 424. 1853. 



We have not seen the type, but Murrill (1916) in his study of the 

 type was unable to make a valid comparison. He states that it resem- 

 bles H. laetus, but that the preserved specimens are old and faded. 



