CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
31 
give the benefit of the doubt to those who may have disputed my 
views. 
It is not my intention, nevertheless, to give way recklessly on 
points which have given me much cause for consideration, and on 
which the evidence as yet adduced is insufficient to raise a doubt 
in my own mind. Such, for instance, is the case with Tricholoma 
russula and H ygrophorus erubescens , as well as Russula delica and 
Lactarius exsuccus. In both these cases, although prepared to treat 
with respect views opposed to my own, I am not convinced. 
There is, however, a rather important instance in which I am 
inclined to modify considerably. In the Scottish Naturalist, 
July, 1890, the Rev. Dr. Keith writes of Agaricus storea , Fr., as 
follows : — 
“ This fungus has got itself established in our books as a species 
which has been found both in England and Scotland ; but though 
I have frequently met with the plant which has been going by this 
name among British mycologists, I have never been able to satisfy 
myself as to its identity with Fries’ species. Ag. storea is recorded 
and described in three of Fries’ works — his ‘ Epicrisis ’ (1836-38), 
his ‘ Monographia ’ (1857), and his ‘Hymenomycetes Europoei ’ 
(1874). In each of these it is expressly mentioned that he had 
found it only twice, in 1815 and 1833, and on both occasions on the 
same trunk. As regards his acquaintance with the species, there- 
fore, all three works are of equal value, for he had never met with 
it after describing it in the 1 Epicrisis.’ Indeed, the description 
in the ‘ Hymenomycetes ’ is a verbatim translation of that in the 
4 Epicrisis,’ so that I am inclined to regard the description in the 
4 Monographia ’ as his latest independent account of the species. 
Now in that description it is expressly declared to be a solitary 
growing species, a feature which is emphasized by being printed in 
italics, and which is said to remove it far from other species other- 
wise approaching it closely. On the other hand, the fungus which 
has been passing among us as Ag. storea , Fr., is a remarkably 
caespitose one, diverging in this respect very strikingly from the 
habit of the true plant. Stevenson, in his ‘ British Fungi,’ gives 
Fries’ description of the species with his usual accuracy, and 
mentions two habitats Ascot and Perth fungus show. I know noth- 
ing of the Ascot specimens, but those which occurred at Perth were 
growing in large clusters, and it was there I got, from a dis- 
tinguished English mycologist, the name of Ag. storea , Fr., for a 
fungus which I had previously taken for Ag. lacrymabundus , Fr. 
Cooke cuts the knot of the difficulty by calling it Ag. storea , Fr., 
var ccespitosus , C. But let anyone compare the figure which he so 
designates with that which he gives of Ag. lacrymabundus , Fr., and, 
excepting the slight difference of colour, he will find little to dis- 
tinguish them. The conclusion I am inclined to come to is that my 
original idea was correct, and that the fungus which has been taken 
for Ag. storea , Fr., is only a form, and scarcely entitled to be called a 
variety of Ag. lacrymabundus , Fr.” 
