6G 
LACTARIUS EXSUCCUS AND AGARICUS RUSSULA. 
Apart from this, he knows that it “ is ” what he assumes it to 
he, and not Lactarius exsuccus alone, but also Russula delica , 
Fr. That is to say, we are to take his word, because he 
knows all about it, and that the illustrious Fries was a 
“ muff,” and described the same thing under two names, once 
as Russula delica , and once as a variety of Lactarius vellereus. 
It is greatly to be regretted that Fries did not consult this 
Anglican mycologist thirty-five years ago, when the latter was 
experimenting daily on the potato disease, in which case he 
might have been spared such an absurd error. But, apart from 
the dogmatic “ is ” of the paragraph, might it not be as well to 
examine the facts. Russula delica , Fr., is described as smooth 
and shining, with white gills, and, we believe, smooth, subglo- 
bose, or oval spores, about 10x8 /x, whereas Lactarius exsuccus, 
Otto, has a tomentose pileus, a somewhat tomentose stem, 
greenish tinted gills, and globose echinulate spores, about 8-9 yu. 
If these two species are one, or should be one, according to the 
said Recorder’ s dictum, we must for the present beg leave to 
dissent, and in like terms declare that Lactarius exsuccus , Otto, 
is not the same as Russula delica , Fr., although we have not 
been to Paris in order to enable us to say so. What effect the 
sumptuous banquets and profusion of champagne, which we 
are informed were bestowed upon the English mycologists, 
might have had it is vain to speculate. 
The second paragraph runs as follows : — “ The last-named 
{Hygrophorus erubescens , Fr.) was placed near a figure of 
Agaricus russula , a plant we find at Downton, and have hitherto 
confounded with Hygrophorus erubescens. The Tricholoma is 
the larger and paler plant, the Hygrophorus is much smaller, 
more distinctly red, with a dash of purple, and reminding one 
somewhat of Agaricus laccatus , but with decurrent gills.” This 
paragraph is far more puzzliug than the former one, and, 
although not less dogmatic, far less satisfactory. It would be 
folly to attempt to discuss it in print, save by reference to well- 
known figures. As far as we know, the Downton plant alluded to 
well corresponds with the description of Hygrophorus erubescens 
and as well with the figure of that species by Fries himself 
(Sverige Svampar, t. 65). Figure of this is now being printed 
for “ Illustrations of British Fungi,” plate 888, drawn from 
specimens exhibited some years since at a Woolhope Fungus 
Foray, presumably from Downton. Agaricus ( Tricholoma ) 
russula , Schasff., is not in the slightest suggestive of Agaricus 
laccatus, any more than the Hygrophorus. It is much more sug- 
gestive of Russula sanguinea , Fr., much darker and brighter 
than Hygrophorus , and in fact not comparable with it. Were it 
not akin to treason to say as much, it is nevertheless our 
private opinion that the writer has never seen Agaricus russula, 
Schseff., and that he has either been imposed upon (after dinner) 
or has attempted to make himself believe that something, 
which he does not know, is the veritable Agaricus russula , or 
