Harper: Hypholoma aggregatum and H. delineatum .233 



of color and especially in the surface of the pileus. It is finely 

 appressed-scaly in Hypholoma lacrimabundum, more coarsely 

 squarrose in H. echiniceps, has fewer and larger patches of fibers 

 in H. Stored var. caespitosum, is nearly smooth in H. aggregatum 

 var. sericcum, and rugose in H. delineatum, if that species proves 

 to belong to this group. 



The variation in the group in Europe appears similar to that 

 in this country. Plowright in the Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc. 1898, 

 p. 45, considered Hypholoma Storea of Cooke's illustration 543 

 identical with Hypholoma lacrimabundum as illustrated in Fries' 

 Icon. 134. W. G. Smith, however, in Jour, of Bot., 1903, p. 386, 

 said that the gills of the former species do not weep and made it 

 a new species Hypholoma Pseudostorea. He was followed by 

 Rea in Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc, 1904, p. 65. Maire in the Bull. 

 Soc. Myc. de France, 191 1, pp. 41-42, supports Plowright's view 

 and considers the weeping of the gills of little importance. Cooke 

 did not admit that Hypholoma lacrimabundum and Hypholoma 

 Storea var. caespitosum were the same species. If we compare 

 the illustrations of Fries and Cooke with our plants and remember 

 that Peck does not report the gills of Hypholoma aggregatum as 

 weeping we conclude that about the same difference exists be- 

 tween the forms in the group in Europe as in this country. Some 

 are larger and less caespitose with the pileus finely scaly and some 

 are more densely caespitose with the pileus coarsely scaly. The 

 former are typical Hypholoma lacrimabundum and the latter 

 Hypholoma Storea var. caespitosum of Cke or Hypholoma aggre- 

 gatum of Peck. A further hint of agreement between our forms 

 in the group and those in Europe is the triangular shape of some 

 of the spores in typical Hypholoma lacrimabundum which Maire 

 has also noted and which he says is the only distinction between 

 Hypholoma lacrimabundum and Hypholoma populinum Britz. 

 The relation of species like Hypholoma silvestre Gill, and of 

 Hypholoma Storea itself to the group needs further investigation. 



The desirability of placing all the forms of the group together 

 is evident. Peck's assignment of Hypholoma aggregatum to the 

 section Flocculosa while Hypholoma lacrimabundum is placed in 

 the section Velutina is most misleading. On the other hand, Maire's 

 bunching all the forms together as one species loses sight of im- 



