APE. .1911J . KA WAMUBA:-^.QN A iEOISOMOUS FUNGUS. 107; 



the chief official in this office was ;so kind as to find for me 

 after much trouble, a man called Amai who was poisoned in 

 1890, and told him aboutrny desire. Amai remembered that 

 twenty years ago his fatheir.'s family was endangered by a 

 fungus and promised at once to aid me in classifying it. The 

 man remembered the poisonnous fungus very well and I 

 learned from Komatsu's letter that it ver^^ much resembled in 

 external appearance Lactarius deliciosus Fr. called ''Akahatsu"^^ 

 in Japanese. 



Some days after I obtained in Nagano prefecture a small 

 specimen of a new Lactarius (this species, I shall describe in 

 tlie near future together with some other new fungi) and sent 

 it to KoMATsu, begging him to show it to Amat, but the latter 

 failed to recognize it. In June 1909 I went to Wakamatsu to 

 visit Komatsu's office ; and personally inquired from Amai about 

 the case of poisoning, learned about the form and the character 

 of the fungus, and inquired concerning its habitat. 



This investigation made me much more acquainted with 

 the fungus and enabled me to draw a more accurate mental 

 picture of it. 



One October day 1909, during my stay in Nagano-prefecture, 

 I examined a specimen of Lactarius which had been brought to 

 me by Mr. T. Yagi. It seemed to agree in every characteristic 

 with description by Amai, therefore I sent it to Komatsu by 

 parcel post and a few days after I learned, to my great joy, 

 that it was declared by Amai to be the very fungus, for which 

 I had sought. 



It was fortunate to obtain many fresh specimens of the 

 Lactarius and after careful examination I knew this fungus to 

 be the Lactarius tormiuosus (Schaeff.) Fr. whose existence in 

 Japan had never been known. Lactarius tortninosus (Schaeff.) 



1) The late N. Tanaka described a fungus that had this Japanese name, as a new 

 species and he gave the name, Lactarius akahatsu Tana., in Tokyo Botanical Maga- 

 zine Vol. lY, No. 45 p. 392 (1890). .But I. can not agree with his opinion, for it 

 appears to me that he examined rather smaller specimens and thought it different 

 from original Lactarius delicious Fr. ; I believe it was no other than Lactarius 

 deliciosus Fr. • ... 



