12 Journal of Mycology [Vol. 11 
long with this species. The first name in the Sydow list, C. 
angustifolia, is a clerical error for C. ligusticifolia. 
No. 1218. PUCCINIA BAKERIANA Arth. is a synonym 
of P. Ellisii De T., and the host is not a species of Heracleum, 
but Angelica tomentosa. The error in determination of the host 
was pointed out by the collector, after publication. Errors like 
this would not be so frequent if collectors would make more lib¬ 
eral packets, and especially be careful to include whole leaves, 
parts of stems, inflorescence, etc., so that the mycologist may have 
some material on which to found a judgment regarding the host 
as well as the fungus. 
In the above notes it has been the attempt to include matters 
of fact only, and not to introduce questions of opinion or mat¬ 
ters not yet fully established. In order to keep this article within 
reasonable limits, most of the data upon which the statements 
are based, have been omitted, but it may be assumed that in every 
instance proof could be supplied by the writer that would meet 
the approval of Dr. Sydow and other mycologists. 
AGARICUS AMYGDALINUS M.A.C. 
EDWARD READ MEMMINGER. 
As far as our research shows, Agaricus amygdalinus has 
never been technically described, and the first appearance of the 
name in print was in Curtis’s List of the Fungi in the Geolog¬ 
ical and Natural History Survey of North Carolina published in 
1867. It is not surprising, therefore, that so littie being known 
about this species, even its existence has been questioned. 
Dr. Farlow, in an interesting paper, entitled “Notes on Agar¬ 
icus Amygdalinus, M. A. Curtis,” published in the Proceedings 
of the Boston Society of Natural History, Vol. 26, has brought 
together all the known facts, and to this paper we wish to 
acknowledge our indebtedness for much that follows. It is our 
intention, in this paper, to review these facts, and to introduce 
others that lead us to the opinion that the plant, named Agaricus 
amygdalinus by Curtis, still grows in the Southern States, and 
is, perhaps, entitled to specific recognition. 
We think it susceptible of proof, that this plant was first 
published by Curtis as Agaricus fabaceus Berk., then this deter¬ 
mination not proving satisfactory, it was united by Ravenel with 
Ag. campestris Linn.; dissatisfaction still existing it was finally 
segregated as Agaricus amygdalinus by Curtis. 
Its first appearance and publication as Agaricus fabaceus 
Berk, was in Silliman’s Journal, Vol. 8, 2d Ser., p. 401. “Agar- 
