NOTES AND QUERIES ON RUSSULAS. 
31 
as accessory , rather than principal , or at least applied with judg- 
ment, and not absolutely. Because, there is no more foetid a species 
than R. foetens and no species so unmistakable, it remains with- 
out dispute that R. foetens would never be confounded by even a 
young mycologist, without smelling it, to anything else. Within 
the past ten years we have occasionally had specimens of R. foetens 
which had no foetid odour (a fact which might be accounted for), 
but on the contrary were positively fragrant, as strong and as 
pleasant as the odour of Agaricus odorus , from which the odour 
could not be distinguished. This was corroborated this year in 
Epping Forest by Mr. Massee, where he remarked the same 
phenomenon. Apropos of odour, we encountered on one occasion 
a specimen of Phallus impudicus from which all the slimy green 
matter had disappeared, and all that was left was nearly as white 
as ivory and of a most pleasant odour, reminding one strongly of 
violets. Exception has been taken to this fact, when the circum- 
stance has been alluded to, and although we have suffered under 
the imputation of “ drawing the long bow ” for fifteen years at 
least (when this experience was encountered), it will perhaps one 
day be admitted, by those who think they know everything that is 
possible for Nature to accomplish, that there really was once such 
a miracle performed as a Phallus with the odour of violets, as well 
as Russula foetens resembling anise. 
Odour must, therefore, always have some latitude, more especi- 
ally those odours, the appreciation of which, like that of female 
beauty, resides so much in the nose and eyes of the spectator. 
There is hardly any odour associated with fungi, good, bad, or 
indifferent, in which more than two persons can be found at the 
same time to agree. Nearly all will admit the odour, but not the 
same odour. For example, there is an odour prevalent amongst 
Lactarii. Let anyone put it to the test. No. 1 says “ odour of 
bugs,” No. 2 says “fenugrec,” No. 3 says “Ligusticum,” No. 4 
says “ empyreumatic,” No. 5 says “ camphor,” No. 6 diluted 
“ asafoetida,” and so on through a considerable range of obscure 
odours, but never more than about two will accord in ascribing it to 
the same odour. If in odour, so also in taste, even more than odour, 
there must be catholicity. Russula rubra is very acrid, no doubt 
about it, when in a really prime condition. Then even the most 
inveterate smoker will confess it a thorough “ pick me up ” for its 
pungency. How, then, can we explain the fact that at Breinton 
some years since, and at Epping Forest this year, a Russula pre- 
cisely identical in all external features, and those of a remarkable 
character, should to the taste prove as mild and pleasant as a new 
filbert. It improves the case very little to say that the mild 
Russula was figured by Krombholz, and called Russula atropurpurea , 
which Fries included as a variety of Russula integra at one time, 
and at another hinted it as a mild aberrant Russula emetica. Must 
taste go for nothing ? Certainly that is not our opinion. But it 
should hardly supersede every and all other features. Here is a 
