Jan. 1905 ] Agaricus Amygdalinus M.A.C. 
17 
me that it [Ag. fabaceus] is an alliaceus’ edible' mushroom. 
Whether Ravenel obtained this fact from personal observation 
does not appear. 
From the foregoing it would seem that the geographical dis¬ 
tribution of Ag. amygdalinus would be from Massachusetts to 
Texas. Its existence in the former state is proved bv the fact 
that when Curtis identified Sprague's New England plant as 
Ag. fabaceus he had in view Ag. fabaceus as described and under¬ 
stood by him in his article in Silliman’s Journal, which we have 
shown was his Ag. Amydalinus; and also by the fact mentioned 
by Dr. Farlow, that the Sprague specimen in Curtis’s Herbarium 
was subsequently changed by Curtis himself to Ag. amygdalinus. 
We therefore have no evidence whatever of the existence of Ag* 
fabaceus, as described by Berkeley, east of the Alleghanies. That 
Ag. amygdalinus exists in North and South Carolina we have 
ample evidence from Curtis and Ravenel. Featherman states in 
his Catalogue of Plants of Louisiana, that it exists near Baton 
Rouge. The authority for its extension to Texas is a note, in 
H. W. Ravenel’s handwriting, on a dried specimen in the National 
Herbarium, labelled Ag. amygdalinus Curtis and collected by 
Ravenel in Texas in 1869. “Ag. amygdalinus Curtis. The eat¬ 
able mushroom of the Atlantic States. Only one specimen found 
in good condition, but weather so damp it preserved badly. I 
send it to show it belongs to the Flora of Texas. April 19. 
Grassy pastures near Houston.” 
It would seem, then, that Ag. amygdalinus is a regular member 
of the Fungal Flora of the Atlantic and Gulf States, from Massa¬ 
chusetts to Texas; whereas, so far as now known, Ag. fabaceus 
belongs to the Ohio Valley. 
A corollary to be drawn from the above conclusions is that 
the addition to Berkeley’s description of Ag. fabaceus of an 
amygdaline taste and odour, upon the authority of Curtis, as 
Mcllvaine has done in his One Thousand Fungi, is incorrect 
and misleading. 
Until, therefore, it is conclusively proved that Ag. amygda- 
linus and Ag. fabaceus are one and the same species, it is proper 
to confine the description of Ag. fabaceus strictly to the words of 
Berkeley, and no argument for the identity of these species, 
based on similarity of taste and odour drawn from Curtis’s state¬ 
ment in Silliman’s Journal, above quoted, can have any weight- 
or force. 
