54 
JOURNAL OF MYCOLOGY. 
[VOL. Ill, No. 6, 
To the description of B. decipiens , JB. & C., is added the remark that 
its affinities are clearly with B. Jiavidus and its allies ; but its dry pileus 
would exclude it from the Viscipelles , to which B. Jiavidus belongs. If 
there is no mistake in the description, the remark is misleading. I sus¬ 
pect it belongs to a very different group from B. Jiavidus. It is also said 
to be so much like Paxillus porosus , Berk., when dry, that it is scarcely 
distinguishable without examination of the spores. Now Paxillus 
porosus has the stem eccentric or lateral in its attachment to the pileus, 
and I have been kindly informed by Mr, Raven el, who has collected 
B. decipiens , that it also sometimes has the stem eccentric or even 
lateral. The forms with central stem appear to be a good Boletus , 
but what shall we say of the other forms V They certainly are 
full of significance. They make the connection between Boletus 
and Paxillus (if 4 P. porosus is a good Paxillus ) too intimate to 
be comfortable. The assertion of Fries that Boletus is a sharply 
defined genus loses much of its force. We can no longer depend upon 
the spores of P. porosus to separate it from the Boleti, for B. sphceroceph- 
alus, Barla., has ovoid spores and B. splmrosporus, Pk., has subglobose 
spores. Nor can we rely on its eccentric or lateral stem, for B. decipiens 
obliterates this character. I see but two ways out of the dilemma, either 
of which will necessitate the removal of P. porosus from among the 
Paxilli. One is to refer both P. porosus and B. decipiens to a distinct 
genus ; the other is to extend the characters of Boletus by inserting after 
the word “central” the words “or rarely eccentric or lateral.” It is 
barely possible that Kalchbrenner’s genus Boletinus may help us out of 
the difficulty, but the character on which it is founded is abstruse and 
needs confirmation. It should be sought in the two species under consid¬ 
eration, also in B. pictus , Pk , B paluster , Pk., and in B. ampliporus , 
Pk., which last species is very closely allied to if not identical with B. 
cavipes , the type species of Boletinus. The trama which characterizes 
Boletinus is not satisfactorily shown in the dried specimens which I have 
examined. The character of the hymenium is very similar in all the species 
indicated above. B. Russellii , Frost, and B. Morgani , Pk., constitute a 
distinct group, Laceripedes , not recognized by Fries and thus far peculiar 
to this country. B. alveolatus , B. & C., as described by Frost in Bull. 
Buf. Soc. Nat. Sci., June, 1874, p. 102, appears to connect this group with 
the Luridi , to which it evidently belongs, as shown by the maroon- 
colored mouths of the tubes, although in Grev., Yol. I,p.36,P. alveolatus , 
B. & C., is affirmed to be either B. edulis or very nearly allied to it. 
B. Spraguei , Frost, is not sufficiently distinct from B. vermiculosus, 
Pk. The name of B. robustus, Frost, must be changed, inasmuch as it 
clashes with B. robustus , Fr. The Frostian plant is well marked, con¬ 
stant in its characters and very easily recognized. It merits the name — 
Boletus eximius.—P ileus at first very compact, subglobose or 
hemispherical,' subpruinose, purplish-brown or chocolate color, some- 
