14 
Journal of Mycology 
[Vol. 11 
That the plant, finally described as Agaricns amygdalinus, is the 
same plant as the one formerly described as Agaricus fabaceus is 
proved, first, by the agreement of the two descriptions; second, 
by the facts mentioned by Dr. Farlow concerning the change 
made by Curtis of the labels in his copy of Ravenel’s Fungi Caro¬ 
linian! Exsiccati, to-wit: 
“In this connection it is of interest to know that in Curtis’s copy 
of Ravenel’s Fungi Caroliniani Exsiccati, Vol. Ill, No. 3, is a specimen 
which, according to the label, is Agaricus fabaceus Berk. There is a 
note in Curtis’s handwriting stating that this number is Agaricus Amy- 
dalinus Curtis. Furthermore, in the Curtis Herbarium there are five 
specimens marked Ag. amygdalinus, viz.: T243 in Arvis arenosis, June, 
Society Hill; 1236, in hortis et sylvis, May, 1849, Society Hill; 1045, 
rich soil in gardens, Nov. Santa Canal, Ravenel; 886, Sprague, Mass. 
also two unnumbered specimens collected in Aug. and Sept., 1849. In 
the case of the first named specimen the name was originally written 
Agarius Arvensis and afterwards corrected to Ag. Amygdalinus. In the 
other cases the name first written was Ag. fabaceus, changed later to Ag. 
Amygdalinus 
Thirdly, that Curtis, after stating that Ag. fabaceus existed 
in North and South Carolina, entirely omits it from his list of 
Fungi of North Carolina, but places Ag. amygdalinus therein; 
and further, that in his letter to Berkeley, mentioned above, 
wherein he purports to give his experience with the eatble mush¬ 
rooms of America, but seems to confine himself to his experience 
of the Carolinas, he makes no mention whatever of Ag. fabaceus, 
which, in 1849, he had said, was common, but describes at length 
Ag. amygdalinus. 
Fourthly, that though Ravenel, in the article quoted above 
from the Charleston Med. Jour., states that Ag. fabaceus was the 
common Southern edible mushroom, and more abundant than 
Ag. Campestris, yet, in his List of the Edible Fungi of South 
Carolina, published in “South Carolina; Resources,” etc., 1883, 
Ag. fabaceus does not appear, though Ag. Amygdalinus is men¬ 
tioned therein. 
Thus it seems clear that Ag. fabaceus, as mentioned and 
described by Curtis in Silliman’s Jour., in 1849, an d Ag. amyg¬ 
dalinus M.A.C. are intended for one and the same plant; and that 
both Curtis and Ravenel at first inclined to the view that the 
amygdaline plant approached closely enough to Berkeley’s descrip¬ 
tion to be placed under it, but years after, upon further study, 
changed their opinion and segregated it as Ag. amygdali¬ 
nus M.A.C. 
As said before, so far as is known, Curtis never published a 
technical description of this species. However, in a fragmentary 
work of his in manuscript, entitled “Esculent Fungi,” which 
through the courtesy of his son, Rev. C. J. Curtis, I have been 
permitted to see and make excerpts from, we are enabled to get 
a more definite idea of this species. 
