18. Amanita daucipes. Plant saffron colored. Stipe solid with 
bulbous root. Warts pyramidal. (See Appendix, p. 14.) 
This species is founded by Montague on a colored drawing sent to Paris by Sullivant* 
from Columbus, Ohio., along in the fifties. 
19. Amanita abrupta. Plant white. Stipe solid with bulbous base. 
Warts pyramidal. (See Appendix, p. 14.) 
Described by Peck from dried specimens collected in Ala. by Underwood and Earle. 
20. Amanita monticulosa. Pileus with discolored warts. (See Ap¬ 
pendix, p. 14.) 
Gills remote from stem, the only character where the distinction from the preceding two 
is obvious. Indeed, considering that all the descriptions have been drawn up from dried spe¬ 
cimens it would not be surprising if all turned out to be the same thing. 
Described by Berkeley from specimens sent from S. C. by Curtis who in his Catalogue 
says “common in sandy woods.” 
21. Amanita clilorinosma. A large white species with the margin 
of the pileus covered with a dense white coat of powdery substance; also charac¬ 
terized by a strong chlorine-like odor. (See Appendix, p 15 ) 
Originally sent Peck from New Jersey by Austin. Reported from same state by Gerard 
and also from Ala. by U. & E. 
22. Amanita prairiicola. Stem not bulbous at the base. Pileus only 
slightly warty. (See Appendix, p. 15.) 
Described by Peck from dried specimens sent by E. Bartholomew which grew on the 
open prairie, Kansas. Not reported elsewhere. 
23. Amanita spissa. Flesh white unchangeable. Pileus with a few 
not sharp warts. (See Stephenson, p. 8.) 
The occurrence in this country is very doubtful. Reported from Maryland by Miss Ban¬ 
ning and from Nova Scotia, Somers. 
24. Amanita nitida. Flesh white unchangeable. Readily recognized 
by the thick angular warts. (See Stevenson, p. 9.) 
This must be very rare in this country. Peck does not report it till 1889, and omits it en¬ 
tirely in his N. Y. monograph 1880. Reported from California, Harkness, (very poor authority.) 
Miss Banning says however “common in nearly every woods in Maryland,” but I think she' is 
mistaken. 
25. Amanita aspera. Flesh not pure white. Pileus thickly covered 
with sharp warts. The illustrations of the plant remind one very much of Lepi- 
ota acutesquamosa. (See Stevenson, p. 9.) 
Rarely reported from this country. N. C., (rare late in Autumn,) Schweinitz; Wise., 
Bundy; Minn., Johnson. 
26. Amanita rubescens. This species is readily distinguished from 
all other Amanitas known in this country by the flesh turning reddish when 
bruised. (See Stevenson, p. 8.) 
This is one of the most common species in this country though it is not reported Avest of 
the Mississippi. At Mammoth Cave, Ky., I have seen the Avoods fairly covered with it. 
Around Cincinnati it is the most frequent species Ave meet, though all Amanitas are rare heie. 
The warts densely cover the young plant but they easily separate and fall oil', especially in wet 
Aveather, and after rains I have frequently seen mature specimens perfectly smooth. The 
plant can always be known by the red spots Avhere it is bruised or Avorm eaten. The color of 
the bruised flesh is dull red, (inclined to broAA'n) not bright as erroneously shown in Ivromb- 
holz’s figure. 
27. Amanita fiavo-rubens. Pileus reddish-yellow. Stipe hollow. 
(See Appendix, p. 15 ) 
Species Avas founded on Sullivant’s figure and specimens sent Montagne from Columbus. 
(See note* below.) Nuttall refers a plant here from W. Va. 
Notwithstanding the author compares this plant only with rubescens I have a strong sus¬ 
picion it is only a yelloAv form of muscaria. At Cincinnati, one hundred miles south of Co¬ 
lumbus, yelloAV muscarias are all Ave And, and in addition European authors are accustomed 
to associate muscaria Avith the bright red form which occurs there. 
SECTION 5. 
Yolva rudimentary, flocculose, wholly disappearing. But one species of this 
section has ever been ascribed to this country, viz : 
28. Amanita lenticularis. Pileus naked, margin even. (See Steven¬ 
son, p. 10.) 
-Over fortv years ago Sullivaut collected over 400 specimens of fungi around Columbus, 
Ohio, which lie dried and also had water color drawings of them made by Robinson. These 
AA r ere sent to Montagne at Paris, France, who founded on them about sixty “ne\A' species” Avliich 
he published in his “Sylloge.” During the winter of 1897-98 I made a visit to Paris almost 
with the sole object of studying these specimens and securing photographs of these pictures, 
but was very much disappointed to learn from my friend N. Patouillard, that the entire set 
has been lost and is not preserved in any Museum in Paris. It is certainly to be hoped that 
the set will yet be found. 
rr 
( 
