Introduction 



HISTORY 



The history of Hygrophorus as a genus may be said actually to 

 date from the treatment given it by Fries in Epidisis Systematis Mij- 

 cologici, pp. 320-333, 1838. The name was actually published by Fries 

 in 1835 and only a short diagnosis given (see Donk, 1949). Previously, 

 the species were distributed through the genus Agaricus. In Systema 

 Mycologicum I (Fries, 1821), we find a significant number of those 

 now grouped in section Hygrocybe included in the subtribe Hygrocybi 

 of tribe Clitocybe. Such well-known species as H. unguinosus, II . psit- 

 tacinus, H. laetus, H. ceraceus, H. conicus, H. puniceus, and //. minia- 

 tus were included among others. In the subtribe CamaropkyUi of tribe 

 Clitocybe he included H. camarophyllus, H. nemoreus, H. pratensis, 

 and H. virgineus. Thus, in the light of later anatomical studies, the con- 

 fusion between the tribe Limacium (Systema I, p. 31) and Camaro- 

 phyllus began. In tribe Limacium of the Systema, Fries included //. 

 ligatus, H. chrysodon, H. erubescens, H. eburneus, H. discoideus, and 

 many others. When brought together under the genus Hygrophorus in 

 the Epicrisis there were twenty species recognized in "Tribe" Lima- 

 cium, sixteen of which are included in the present work. In "Tribe" 

 Camarophyllus twelve species were included, three of which have 

 been subsequently placed in section Hygrophorus because of their 

 bilateral gill trama. Five of the remainder we have been able to recog- 

 nize in North America. In "Tribe" Hygrocybe the first two species listed 

 are now placed in Cantharellus. Of the remaining sixteen we have 

 recognized eleven here in North America. It is readily apparent From 

 this situation that the species known from Europe are for the most part 

 also present in North America. Though many species have since been 

 described both from Europe and North America, it is still true that bv 

 far the majority of the well-established (as pertains to our knowledge 

 of them ) European species also occur in our flora. 



The history of the genus from 1838 to the present has been re- 

 markably uninteresting. Fewer changes have been suggested than in 

 many other agaric genera, and yet the genus is based primarily on a 

 subjective character, the waxy hymenophore. Such changes as have 



J 



