MYCOLOGICAL NOTES. 
BY G. Q. LLOYD. 
No. 4. 
CINCINNATI, O. NOVEMBER, 1899. 
50—THE GENUS PS ALLIOTA.* 
The genus Psalliota is a brown spored genus belong¬ 
ing to the tribe Annulse and corresponds to Lepiota in the 
white spored series. Indeed so closely is it related to Lep¬ 
iota in general appearance that photographs of certain 
species could not be referred to either genus without other 
data. The characters of the genus are : 
Pileus distinct from the fleshy stem. Gills free. Veil 
membranous forming a ring. Spores brown. 
The genus further agrees with Lepiota in the tendency 
of the flesh of many species to change of color when bruised. 
There is a small corresponding genus, Annularia, in the 
pink spored series which is not recorded in this country, but 
no corresponding genus in either the yellow or black spored 
series. 
To our mycophagist friends this genus is of great im¬ 
portance as probably all its species are edible, although 
' doubts have been thrown on comptula. It includes the 
widely known and universally eaten “campestris” which 
many persons suppose is the only “mushroom.” 
The spores of Psalliota are small, elliptical, about 4x5 
me. They vary some in size, but not enough, however, 
we think, to form distinctive characters. One species 
(Rodmani) has globose spores. 
While the rings of many species of Psalliota are a sim¬ 
ple membrane, as we find in many Lepiotas, there are 
*Most recent writers call this genus Agaricus. The Linnaean idea of the genus Agaricus 
was “anything with gills.” Fries modified the idea and defined a good genus dividing it into 
a numb-r of subgenera. Saccardo raised Fries’ subgenera to generic rank, adopting Fries’ 
names <>f the subgenera for all the genera with the exception of one. Psalliota he calls Aoaricns. 
why? because the first species that Linnaeus happened to list under Agaricus was a species of 
Psalliota. The name Agaricus lias been applied to so many plants that its use is confusing as 
applied to a plant now. Tn our opinion it is belter to drop it altogether. If Linnaeus had formu¬ 
lated any intelligent idea of a genus Agaricus as we know P-alliota now, there would be some 
claim to retain his name. To continue a Linnaean name, civen when he had no idea concern¬ 
ing the genus, and especially when that name has been used so extensively and applied to so 
many iifferent p'ants that it has lost all suggestion of distinctiveness is bad. To try to restrict 
the name now to a small section simp] v because one plant of that section was “mentioned first, 
by accident” when we have a good descriptive name that conveys no idea excepting of that one 
section we think is unwise. 
25 
