36 
CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
figured with white gills, but they were cinereous in my original 
drawing, and have been left white in printing. This was over- 
looked at the time, but it should be corrected. Again, Plate 167, 
which represents Ag. ( Tricholoma) virgatus, has been printed with 
the pileus so dark that it is scarce recognizable. 
I might allude to Aq. (Tricholoma) argyraceus. I certainly 
do not retain the opinion that it is a variety of the very common 
Agaricus terreus. Indeed, I cannot refer it either to Ag. 
scalpturatus , and in my present frame of mind I would rather 
recognize it as a species separate from either, with its two varieties, 
Ag. chrysites and Ag. virescens , both of which are figured in the 
“ Illustrations.” I still think that Ag. oriruhens is only a form of 
Ag. terreus , and possibly Ag. atro-squamosus, but of the latter I am 
by no means certain. 
More important, perhaps, is the conclusion I am to announce of 
a search after Ag. gangrenosus, Fr., and although I still consider 
it in some sense an open question, I cannot divest myself of the 
suspicion that we, in this island at any rate, have only Ag. semitalis 
to which all specimens and drawings of the supposed Ag. gan- 
grenosus should be referred. A glance at the description as well as 
the figures of Ag. semitalis strongly suggest Tricholoma , and not 
Colly hia, with the gills sinuate or emarginate. Possibly, also, Ag. 
(Tr.) immundus is only a pale form of Ag. semitalis. All of them 
agree in turning black when bruised, or old, and all of them should 
of right be placed in the same section of Tricholoma. Whatever 
we may say, the subject is at least worthy of further investigation. 
Beyond dispute, I should think, since Fries has published his 
figures of Hygrophorus laetus in his “ leones,” no one will contend 
that Hygr. Houghtoni can be maintained as distinct. I must 
profess, also, great scepticism with regard to Bolbitius Boltoni and 
Bolbitius vitellinus, at least if the right species have been found 
and figured in the “ Illustrations.” 
Of course there are causes always at work in such cases which 
render some of the plates in the “Illustrations” far more satis- 
factory than others. The first volume, for instance, before the 
lithographers became accustomed to that particular kind of work, 
there was a deficiency in the mechanical work of printing which 
subsequently disappeared. The eye does not become accustomed 
to the nice distinctions in the tone of colour without experience, 
and there were difficulties at first in getting softness, and pre- 
venting exaggeration of the bright tints. These difficulties dis- 
appeared entirely by the time we arrived at Cortinarius , which is 
about the best period artistically of the work. Be that as it may, 
some plates will always be open to dissatisfaction, whilst others 
must frankly be conceded to be the best illustrations of given 
species ever produced in any country. The reproductions were 
also made from the drawings of various people beside myself, so 
that in some instances there is a crudeness and stiffness in draw- 
ing — and in this respect there is some variety. Some artists 
