CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
37 
never seem to acquire the power of giving character to their 
sketches. They may know well enough what they should be, but 
fail to express it. All these things taken into account, the failures 
are not numerous. All positive errors it has been my ambition to 
correct, as soon as possible, and I fancy but few are left. 
It must be remembered, too, that the same species will be sub- 
ject to variation, and though some of the figures are not truly 
typical, they, nevertheless, represent our insular forms. There is 
an example of this in Agar. ( Tricholoma ) portentosus ; the Plate 
54 has been called in question by some continental mycologists, 
but early this present year I found at Kew, the first time for many 
years, the exact form which was figured, and submitted it to one 
or two of my mycological friends with great satisfaction. 
I have long felt that Plate 27 was a poor representation of Ag. 
(Lepiota) hispidus , Lasch, even if it deserved to be so called, but 
the true species was lately found at Carlisle, and is now being 
printed for the supplement. It has been compared with a drawing 
made by the illustrious Fries, and no doubt can remain of its 
accuracy. 
Some mycologists contend that Ag. ( 'Lepiota ) Friesii is only a 
variety of Ag. ( Lepiota) acute-squamosus, but I think that a com- 
parison of the two figures will suffice to carry conviction that they 
should be maintained as distinct. Again, the identity of Ag. 
(Lepiota) meleagris, Sow., and Ag. (Lepiota) Badhami, Berk., it 
would be folly to insist upon. 
The species figured on Plate 33 as Ag. ( Armillaria) aur antius 
was soon found to be wrong, and it was called subsequently Ag. 
robustus , but my present opinion is in favour of Ag. caligatus , as 
figured by Barla, rather than Ag. robustus. In passing, it may be 
observed that the pileus in Plate 76 (Agaricus acerbus) is much 
too dark, and rufous. It must not be forgotten that Plate 60 is 
not Ag. imbricatus , which name is attached to it, but Ag. vaccinus. 
A worthy friend and fellow-member of this Club is at issue with 
me respecting Ag. (Clito) giganteus and Ag. (Clito) maximus. I 
will not enter here upon the discussion, and only repeat my con- 
viction that the two plates are accurate in their representation of 
the two species ; therefore I have no doubt, in the course of time, 
my antagonist will succumb. If he is one of the first to raise 
doubts, and pertinacious in insisting on them, he is also most 
magnanimous in renouncing them as soon as he discovers that they 
cannot be maintained. 
And here I may venture a doubt whether Ag. ( Clito ) inversus , 
Ag. (Clito ) flaccidus , and Ag. ( Clito) lobatus are not all forms of one 
species. 
In the next place, if the figure of Ag. ( Clito) senilis, from our 
late friend M. J. Berkeley, whose memory we all revere (PI. 
110), can be referred to that species at all, it must be a very 
remote form. It may be of interest to state that Berkeley has 
more than once expressed his conviction to me, that of all the 
