(5117) 
Alfojthe youGgeft and tendrcft of them^ that fochas are 
moft Juicy, to have been very much eaten by the Grey mea- 
dow naked Smil^ lodging themfelves withio the fides of the 
plant. 
Concerning this kind of biting Muflhromi I find in a cer- 
tain late difcoarfe of the State of I{uJJta thefe words > Groo^- 
fhidys Fungorum maximi^ palmam lati^ in flat Omaft bibulifunt^ 
crajji & candidi'-^dum crudt [unt^ fucco ( laUeo path) abundant, 
EosficutTithymMummuriicarrigunt Rutheni 5 aliter fauces 
^ guttur inflammahunU Ipfi femel nimii inconjiderate affatos 
comedere tentabam^ non fne fupfscationis periculo, Tht refereoce 
to the Cuts or Figures is here coofufedj and the defcription 
coo coocife, to fay that Ours agrees in any thing with 
Theirs, fave the great acrimony of the Juice they both 
yield. 
I may fonaetime acquaint you with the Medicinal Ufes, 
I have cauled to be m^de of this White Kefin : In the mean 
time I ftiall only mind you of che great affinity it hath with 
Euphorbium. 
Since this Letter the Author thereof was pleafed to give us 
this further Account in an other of Decemb. 17^ vi:{; 
- — — Mr ^r^y returned me this Anfwer to my Letter 
about the biting Mushrom 5 
''At my return 10 Midletonl found a Letter from you, 
" containing the Defcription of a Muftirom by you difco- 
*^ ver'd io M^ir^o?^' woods under Finno moor. I doubt not 
but it is that defcribed in Joh^ BauhinLdp. c,6,xind^rxhc 
title of Fungus piper atus albuSy laHeofucco turgens^ Only he 
" laith 5 I * That it doth in bignefs exceed the Champignon • 
whereas you writCj that there are few of them much big^ 
^ger than fiiJ^.* But yet in faying fo, you grant them to be 
bigger* 2*He faith, for their bignefs they are not fb thick 
*^as that'^^oM defcribe yours to be thick in flefb. In all other 
points the Dgfcriptions agree exadlly. For thccc/f?/^rjthat 
O o o o o a it 
