RYCOPERDON PULCHERRIMUM. 
There is quite a problem in selecting a name for this plant. 
The specimen on which Berkeley based the description has large, pur¬ 
ple, rough spores. Berkeley described it as having small, smooth, olive 
spores. Massee states that the spores have changed since Berkeley 
worked with the specimens but that does not appeal to me as being 
possible. I rather think Berkeley was careless, and was more inter¬ 
ested in adding his name to a ‘‘new species” than in giving a good 
description of the plant. It is a question to me whether such work in 
a case like this has any claim to recognition. Prof. Peck had no 
reason to think when he met the plant that Berkeley had described it 
and can not be blamed for re-naming it R. Frostii. Everything being 
equal, I personally, would use Prof. Peck’s name, but there are other 
considerations. L. pulcherrimum is particularly appropriate, as it is 
the “most beautiful” species we have, and I have always contended 
that plants as well as men have rights in the selection of names. 
Besides, since Trelease correctly interpreted Berkeley’s specimen, and 
Morgan accepted and published it, the name is somewhat estab¬ 
lished. I rejoice, however, that I do not have to add to the name of 
this beautiful plant the name of the man who so strongly misrepresent¬ 
ed it. 
RYCOPERDON DERICATUM. 
I am glad to locate this name as it has always been a mystery. 
Morgan had no conception of it as is evident from his paper. From 
Berkeley’s description I have thought it was possibly Calvatia rubro- 
flava and others have thought the same, as I have seen specimens of 
Calvatia rubro-flava so named. The plant is our old , familiar friend , 
Calvatia craniiformis. 
RYCOPERDON CRUCIATUM. 
The specimen (1846, Olney, R. I.) which Berkeley cites is as 
we now know the plant, and I have always claimed that Berkeley re¬ 
ferred our American plant (separans of Peck) to the European species. 
(Cfr. Myc. Notes, p. 83). That Curtis had no idea of the species is 
evident, as we find plants of his naming on his sheets of Wrightii and 
also on gemmatum sheet. Among those on the Wrightii sheet is a 
specimen from Prof. Peck, and Curtis undoubtedly named R. cruci- 
atum as Wrightii for Prof. Peck. This is a clue to Peck’s subsequent 
treatment of cruciatum as a variety (separans) of Wrightii. 
RYCOPERDON CURTISII AND RYCOPERDON WRIGHTII. 
Neither of these plants are cruciatum, with which they have 
both been confused. They look very much alike externally, but as I 
do not know their internal difference I can not say. 1 would say, 
however, that the plant with which I am so familmr, which Moigan 
has called Curtisii and has truly characterized as having hya/ine capilli- 
tium, is represented by the specimen of Wrightii rathei than of 
Curtisii. The latter seems to me to be more yellowish than the plants 
wq now know’ under this name. 
153 
