30 
NOTES AND QUERIES ON RUSSULE. 
Russula that puzzles the best of us. And why ? Because of the 
absence of broad distinctive features which assist so much in other 
groups. There are no caespitose species, for all are solitary. There 
are no lignicolous species, for all are terrestrial. There are no 
squamose or scaly species, for all are more or less smooth. Hence 
the characters by which one species may be distinguished from 
another in other groups are in this reduced to a minimum, so that 
they have to be supplemented by other and new distinctions which 
prevail here, but are not recognized, or but faintly elsewhere. 
Another cause of difficulty, in my mind, exists in the undue 
limitation of species or varieties. It is of no consequence whether 
one regards them as species, and another as varieties, the thing needed 
is a definite isolation of distinct forms, so that any species or 
individual met with can without difficulty be set in its proper place. 
The species recognized by Fries may all be good enough species as 
he understood them, but his diagnoses are often too general, and 
embrace too much for ordinary use. The average mycologist 
requires more than the diagnoses of Fries will give. In some 
instances, perhaps, the species will cover only a reasonable range, 
such as Russula Jellea , Russula sanguinea , Russula Ititea, Russula 
nigricans, and Russula depoliens, with some others, but constantly 
individuals are met with, such as those named recently as Russula 
Barlce , Russula punctata, Russula granulosa, Russula drimeia , 
which would puzzle anyone who attempted to place them under 
the species of Fries. No alternative exists, as it seems to us, 
but to increase the number of recognized forms if the identifica- 
tion of Russulce is to be accomplished with anything like success 
by the average mycologist. Let it not be understood that we 
advocate an indiscriminate manufacture of new species, we would 
recommend that only such individuals should be referred to a 
species as the description will fairly cover, and that forms aberrant 
from these should be clearly recognized and indicated by definite 
names. 
Here it may be inquired, What are the features to be taken into 
account in the characterization of species in the genus Russula ? 
Perhaps on the answer to this question the gist of the subject 
depends. There could be no objection to take one of the diagnoses 
of Fries and accept that as sufficient indication of the characters 
to be recognized. Bear in mind that we state expressly one of the 
“ diagnoses ” of Fries, leaving out all question as to the individuals 
which those diagnoses have hitherto been made to cover, because 
they have been made to cover at least twenty fairly good species, 
which have lately been separated, and may possibly include as 
many more. The characters seem to be the following, as they 
stand in Fries : — Taste — pileus, form and character (Fries always 
has excluded colour from the diagnosis of the pileus) — cuticle — 
margin — stem, without and within — gills — form, attachment and 
colour — and in some instances odour. Taking first for comment 
taste , and odour. It may be urged that these should be regarded 
