BRITISH HYPHOMYCETES. 
65 
Ramularia rosea, Fckl. Sacc. Syll. 966. 
On willow leaves. 
Ramularia alnicola, Cooke. Sacc. Syll. 967. 
On alder leaves. Lyndhurst. 
Ramularia iiellebori, Fckl. Sacc. Syll . 970. 
On leaves of H. fcetidus. 
Ramularia scelerata, Cooke. Sacc. Syll. 971. 
On Ranunculus sceleratus. Lyndhnrst. 
Ramularia cochleariae, Cooke. Sacc. Syll. 977. 
On Cochlearia officinalis. Banks of Don. 
Ramularia armoraciae, Fckl. Sacc . Syll. 978. 
On horseradish leaves. 
Ramularia lacteae, Desm. Sacc. Syll. 979. 
On violet leaves. Kew, near Hereford, Longhton. 
Ramularia ulmariae, Cooke. Sacc. Syll. 989. 
On leaves of meadow sweet. 
Ramularia lychnicola, Cooke. Sacc. Syll. 993. 
On leaves of Lychnis diurna. Lyndhnrst. 
Ramularia geranii, West. Sacc. Syll. 994. 
On leaves of Geranium. Lynn. 
Ramularia malvae, Fckl. Sacc. Syll. 995. 
On Malva mo schata. Forres, N.B. 
LACTARIUS EXSUCCUS AND AGARICUS RUSSULA. 
By the Editor. 
There were people, in olden days, who said, “ Can any good 
thing come out of Nazareth ?” and in these times we have their 
analogue in the Recorder (in Gardeners’ Chronicle , Nov. 5, 1887) 
of the Paris Mycological Congress. He evidently believes that 
there is nothing so good, or so true, as that which is derived 
from either a Frank or a Teuton. Even the air of Paris made 
him feel generous, so that he condemned the stupidity 7 of 
English mycologists (himself included) in two memorable 
instances, to both of which, being neither Teuton nor Frank, 
though equally just to both, we venture to take exception. 
> In the first place, he says “ Russula delica , Fr., a plant I was 
exceedingly pleased to see, because it is the Lactarius vellereus, 
var. exsuccus, Smith, which we so commonly meet with. Every 7 
fungologist knows it, with its gills showing a tinge of green in 
oblique light, and it is very satisfactory to correct one’s errors, 
even if you have to go as far as Paris to do so.” Now this 
would have been a respectable paragraph for an ordinary 
penny-a-liner, but for one who professes to be a fungologist, 
and something of a man of science, it is less creditable, apart 
from its dogmatism. The last-named fungus is not Lactarius 
vellereus, var. exsuccus , Smith, but the Lactarius exsuccus, Smith 
(or rather of Otto), and the Agaricus piperatus, var. exsuccus, 
Pers. Syn. 429, or Lactarius vellereus, var. exsuccus, Fries. 
