84 
NOTES ON HYMENOMYCETES. 
“ Epicrisis,” dated 1836 (see p. 117). What was Dr. Quelet 
doing with Fungi 52 years ago ? Was he then in correspondence 
with Fries ? We fancy not, but that his occupation at that 
period was of a more puerile character. If, moreover, Quelet was 
so convinced of the accuracy of his knowledge of Ag. cincinnatus , 
Fr., why was it that he figured it (PI. xii., Fig. 3) in his “ Champ 
ignons du Jura ” under the name of Inocybe dulcamarus, and 
(PI. xii., Fig. 4) Ag. dulcamarus as Inocybe cincinnatus , Fr., as 
pointed out by Mr. Berkeley in “ Annals of .Natural History ” 
(1878, under number 1654), and, we presume, since corrected it ? 
If Bresadola is right, and Quelet must be accepted because he 
“ was for many years in correspondence with Fries,” by the same 
reasoning Berkeley must be more accurate still, because he “ was 
for many years in correspondence with Fries ” before Quelet had 
any knowledge of Fries or Fungi. 
Agaricus {Inocybe) lanuginosus , Bull., “ Illustrations,” t. 582, 
Fig. A., figured with smooth spores. Bresadola says that this must 
be a form of Ag. dulcamarus , A. & S., at least he supposes so, but 
without assigning a reason, probably also because M. Quelet says 
so. There are sixty specimens of this in the Berkeley Herbarium 
agreeing with the figures and spores in the “ Illustrations,” and, with 
all deference both to M. Quelet and M. Bresadola, we accept the 
authority (if it is to be a question of authority) rather of Mr. 
Berkeley than of either, because he was for more than fifty years 
“ in correspondence with Fries.” If M. Bresadola or M. Quelet 
can produce an authentic specimen of Ag. lanuginosus either from 
Bulliard or Fries, with rough spores, we will at once admit that 
Berkeley and ourselves have been in error. It may be added that 
Bresadola declares that our figure of Ag. cincinnatus (t. 425 B.) is 
a form of Ag. lanuginosus , Bull., which he says has often a “ bluish 
tinge when young,” but upon what authority is this stated as a 
fact? — not of Fries or Bulliard, but (perhaps) of Quelet or Bresa- 
dola, whence it may be inferred that theirs is not the genuine 
species. 
Agaricus [ Inocybe ) carptus , Scop., “ Illustrations,” t. 426. This is 
figured with smooth spores, and, like the preceding, accords with 
the determinations of Berkeley. Bresadola thinks that everybody 
else has been wrong, and his interpretation of Scopoli’s species is 
the only accurate one ; moreover, that our figure is only a form of 
Ag. plumosus , Bolton, and, being an Englishman, it is only natural 
that an Austrian should know his species better than any two 
Englishmen can do. 
This same critic ventures also to determine that the Ag. 
analogicus of Britzelmayr is the same as the species which he 
regards as Ag. carptus. In one sense he is more fortunate than 
ourselves, for we have never been able to find this Fig. 148 in our 
copy of Britzelmayr, and had we done so probably could have 
learnt nothing from it. Bresadola’s own figures certainly do not 
represent the species which Fries had in view, but that is of very 
