38 
CONTROVERTED AGARICS. 
subgenera of Agaricus he considered Clitocybe as the most puzzling 
and difficult. Again I venture to dissent from the “ Father of 
English Mycology,” in that I have grave doubts whether his figures 
of Ag. ( Collybia ) acervatus (Pl. 267) represent the true species. 
As to Ag. ( Collybia ) balaninus , B., and Marasmius erythropus , 
Fr., I must continue to hold to the opinion that they are by no 
means identical if you obtain specimens which are authentic and 
compare them. The Ag. ( Mycena) excisus , figured on Plate 148, is 
a fine species and an interesting one, but I could not insist upon its 
being referred to Ag. excisus, of Lasch ; perhaps it is a new and 
distinct species. 
Ag. ( Pleurotus) pantoleucus (PI. 179) must, I think, be wrong 
in colour, but it is a faithful copy. 
All I can say of Ag. (Pleurotus) ostreatus is that I regard it as 
a most variable species, and I hardly dare venture to name all the 
so-called species which I should characterize as some of its 
varieties. 
Passing now from the white-spored to the pink-spored species, 
my first doubt is of Ag. gloiocephalus and Ag. speciosus. Is there 
any sound specific difference ? There seems to be a much more 
feasible distinction between the two forms of Ag. phlebophorus on 
Plate 422, and I am inclined to give way to our Gallic neighbours 
who regard them as distinct species. I have already remarked 
elsewhere my conviction that the Ag. ( Clitopilus) carneoalbus, of 
Withering, is not the species of Fries and the continental 
mycologists (PI. 324). 
Agaricus ( Pholiota ) erebius , Fr., will, I presume, be accepted as 
including also Ag. (Armillaria) denigratus and Ag. leveilleanus , 
D. & M. Amongst other species of Pholiota I can only allude to 
Ag. comosus , Ag. heteroclitus, and Ag. destruens, expressing my 
regret that I cannot find good specific differences between them. I 
shall purposely pass over Hebeloma and Inocybe without remark ; 
to commence would be fatal, as the end would not be within an 
appreciable distance. 
Leaving to private opinion, as an open question, the identity of 
Ag. ( Flammula ) inopus with some of the yellow species of 
Hypholoma, there is but little in Flammula which calls for remark. 
Indeed it is time that these observations came to a close. Some- 
thing has already been said of Hypholoma, and more might be said, 
but for the present we will rest content with the end of the fourth 
volume of “ Illustrations,” and venture no further. To the un- 
initiated such a paper as this will be sufficiently uninteresting and 
wearisome, even if not prolonged to an inordinate extent. 
Having had the effrontery to issue some 1,200 plates of these 
gill-bearing fungi, which has now been the persistent work of some 
years, with only about 12, or not more than 24 more to come, I 
may be excused from a desire to hold conference with the Wool- 
hope Club on some “ controverted Agarics,” and unbosom some 
of my doubts. Some of us old friends can hardly be expected to 
