118 
NEW BRITISH FUNGI. 
in Tr. affinis. The spores in Tr. chrysospeimna have the projecting 
polygonally reticulate thickening of the exospore deep, narrow, and 
nonpunctulate, whilst in Tr. affinis these are broader, shallower, 
and conspicuously punctulate. 
Under Tr. chrysosperma, Rostafinski quotes a very extensive 
synonomy. I have devoted some time to the study of the syno- 
nyms quoted, but I am not satisfied from the descriptions and 
figures by the several authors that the identification in all cases is 
correct. Indeed, I do not see how, by such descriptions and figures 
as are given, one can determine which of the sessile aggregated 
species — Tr. chrysosperma , Tr. scabra , Rtfki., Tr. Jackii , Rtfki., 
and Tr. affinis De Bary, all having a general likeness in habit — is 
referred to by the older authors. A correct estimate would only 
be possible after examination of the type specimens. How many 
of these Rostafinski was enabled to study I do not know. As I 
have not yet had the opportunity of seeing a sufficient number of 
these, I shall not at present criticise in detail the synonomy, but 
that great confusion has occurred in the identification of the several 
species of sessile, aggregate Trichias, an examination of the 
specimens in the Kew Herbarium has convinced me. I have not 
yet had a chance of critically studying the Myxomycetes of Berk- 
ley’s Herbarium, but I have carefully gone over the other collec- 
tions, and I may here give some of the results. 
But first let me say a word as to the name Trichia chrysospei'ma , 
as adopted by Rostafinski. As I have stated he ascribes it to Bul- 
liard (“ Hist, des Champign.,” t. (1791) 131, t. 417, f. 4), who de- 
scribes a form, Sphcerocarpus chrysospemnus , presenting three varie- 
ties, the first of which is taken by Rostafinski as the type of the 
species Trichia chrysosperma , Bull. Now in Bulliard’s description 
and figures there is nothing regarding the elaters and spores to 
show that his species really conforms with the definition of the 
species given by Rostafinski, and is not such another form as Tr. 
affinis , De By. Indeed, as I have mentioned already, Fuckel 
quotes the species as being in part De Bary’s Tr. affinis , though 
I do not know the ground for his identification. But supposing 
Rostafinski’s identification be correct, there is no warranty for 
affixing Bulliard’s name to the species, as he describes it under 
another genus. The real authors of the name it would appear are 
Lamarck and De Candolle, who (“ Synops. Plant.,” No. 673, and 
again, “ Flor. Franc.,” n., 250) describe under this name what 
they take as identical with Bulliard’s Sphcerocarpus chrysospermus, 
which they quote as a synonym. Bulliard has no claim to the 
name. Rostafinski having adopted the name for the form he so 
carefully describes there need be now no longer any difficulty or 
confusion in the determination of the species as it is preserved in 
herbaria or gathered at the present day whatever decision be come 
to as regards synonyms. 
Trichia affinis , De Bary, has been looked upon hitherto as a rare 
species, and there is no published record of its occurrence in Britain. 
But I find that it is really common, much more so than the other 
sessile aggregated forms. In Ivew Herbarium is a specimen with 
