32 
CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
Before making any observations on the foregoing, I must testify 
my profound respect for the opinions of Dr. Keith on matters 
relating to the Hymenomycetes, my ready acknowledgment of his 
great experience in field work, and a full recognition of his careful 
and acute powers of observation. No opinion which I have heard 
on this vexed question has come to me with an equal degree of force, 
and I must acknowledge myself, if not entirely, yet to a very large 
extent, ready to accept his interpretation. 
The first record of this name amongst British Fungi was by 
Berkeley and Broome in the “Annals of Natural History,” No. 1418, 
with the remark : “ This curious species occurred last year at the 
base of different trees at Ascot and at Coed Coch ; and it has also 
been found by Mr W . G. Smith, and was exhibited at South 
Kensington, October, 1873. It is considered very rare by Fries; 
but it is probably one of those species which are abundant in some 
one year, and are not found again for a generation.” W. G. Smith 
figured his specimens in the Journal of Botany , Yol. xiv., Plate 176, 
Fig 4. There remains no doubt that the species seen by Berkeley, 
and found by Smith, were the same as that figured in “ Illustrations 
of British Fungi,” Plate 543, and again, the same as that alluded 
to by Dr. Keith as exhibited at Perth. Of the identity of all these 
there need be no question. Berkeley and Smith had the same plant 
in view, for both have indicated it to me as Ag. storea , Fr., and gave 
me the first impression of the species. 
In 1884 Mr. C. B. Plowright gave expression to his views on this 
species in “ Grevillea,” Vol. xiii., p. 48, where he described it 
under the name of Ag. hypoxanthus , adding : “ This Agaric has 
been regarded as A. storea , but incorrectly so. It is always 
csespitose,* and has hitherto occurred either on rotten beech wood 
or under beech trees.” I was still under the impression that it 
was a csespitose condition of Ag. storea when it was figured as Ag. 
storea var ccespitosus in “ Illustrations of Fungi,” Plate 543, and I 
was much influenced by the opinion of the Bev. J. Berkeley in its 
favour. 
Upon careful consideration of the subject, I have come to the 
conclusion that we really know nothing of Ag. storea beyond the 
description in Fries. There is no figure of it in existence, as far 
as we know, and we have nothing to guide us but a strict adher- 
ence to the description given by Fries. The plant under considera- 
tion does not conform in all particulars to the description ; it 
cannot be the typical form ; and it seems to me that I am not 
justified in insisting upon the retention of a variety, the type of 
which is comparatively unknown. I think that the points of 
divergence insisted upon are its csespitose habit, moist viscid pileus, 
and hollow stem, and I doubt if the edges of the gills are albo- 
serrulate. I cannot recognize the habit of Inocybe (“ habitus 
* This present year (1890) I have found precisely the same species 
growing solitary , so that it is not always csespitose. — M. C. C. 
