CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
35 
connection with Ag. ( Glitocybe ) odorus. Fries maintains the Ag. 
viridis of Withering, and Bolton’s figures (tab. 12), as a distinct 
species under the name of Ag. viridis , but as far as British Fungi 
are concerned, I feel satisfied that we have only the one species, 
which is known to us as Agaricus odorus , and, if there is another 
species, which Fries himself had never seen, it is neither that of 
Withering nor Bolton, and should have no place in the British list, 
except as synonymous with Agaricus odorus. As far as France is 
concerned, Dr. Quelet does not recognize two species, and I am 
strongly of opinion that at least the two references to Withering 
and Bolton, under Ag. viridis, should be transferred to Agaricus 
odorus , to which, in my opinion, they alone belong. 
As this communication will be interpreted in some sense as a 
confession of sin, a little justification of that view may be found 
perhaps in the admission that I feel very suspicious of having 
fallen into error with regard to Ag. (Collybia) tuberosus and Ag. 
cirrhatus. It is at least probable that the colour of tuber is only a 
question of age, and that what I have figured as two species, are 
really but one, and that one Agaricus tuberosus , whilst Ag. 
cirrhatus has not been figured at all. It may be that the pale 
tuber is characteristic of Ag. tuberosus , and that the black tuber 
belongs to Ag. racemosus. Since the conviction of some error has 
invaded me I have had no opportunity of collecting and examining 
specimens so as to arrive at a definite conclusion ; under any cir- 
cumstances it seems that no tuber really belongs to Ag. cirrhatus t 
for some weight must be given to the remark made by Fries under 
the latter species, in his “Monographia”: “ Tuber radicale in hac 
specie numquam adest.” 
Moreover, in this place I cannot resist the impression, although 
I have endeavoured to view their differences impartially, that Ag. 
(Clitopilus) orcella, and Ag. (Clitopilus) prunulus have no just 
claims to specific distinction. I am well aware that our friend Dr. 
Bull had a strong opinion in favour of their being good species, 
but perhaps he only intended to express his own facility in dis- 
tinguishing one form from another, and this would apply as well 
to mere varieties, as to definite species. It is not my intention to 
pronounce any dictum on what should be the limits of species or 
varieties, nor do I think it of so much consequence, although in 
this case I may be permitted to reserve a doubt, which I do not 
think is merely an individual opinion. I sought the most 
characteristic specimens for illustration, and yet I cannot recognize 
a sound specific difference. 
Perhaps it would be considered rather heretical in me to doubt 
in the same manner Ag. (Lepiota) procerus and Ag. ( Lepiota ) 
rachodes, but the larger the number of specimens I 
examine the more are my doubts strengthened as to their specific 
differences. 
I may observe, in reference to the “ Illustrations,” that Plate 49 
is liable to be misleading. Ag. (Tricholoma) murinaceus is there 
