I IO 
THE ESSEX NATURALIST. 
I saw some 20 of these, all of which, save two, were those of V. vulgaris, 
but I was informed by the head gardener that practically all the nests 
destroyed belonged to either V. vulgaris or V. germanica , and that the 
nests of each species appeared to be segregated on different sides of the 
estate. He could not account for this. 
Between Walthamstow and Chingford I personally took 21 nests be¬ 
tween June and December, 1921, 14 being V. germanica and 7 V. vulgaris. 
The prevalence of these two common species and the almost total absence 
of V. rufa, V. norvegica and V. sylvestris in this part of the country during 
the year seem to suggest that when the common or ground building species 
are exceptionally plentiful, the less common species, which usually occur 
in the district, are crowded out by competition.— Charles Nicholson, 
F.E.S. 
The Stinkhorn Fungus ( Ithyphallus impudicus). —Everyone familiar 
with our Essex woodlands must be familiar also with this remarkable 
fungus—or, at any rate, with its disgusting odour ; for it grows, I believe^ 
in most woods throughout the county and it advertises its presence therein 
very effectively by means of its much-more-than-remarkable smell. 
The fungus occurs, as a, rule, sparingly and sporadically, either singly 
or in small numbers. It was not until the year 1911 that I saw it growing 
anywhere in Essex in anything like considerable numbers. In that year 
I saw it growing very freely in Broom Wood, Chignal St. James, adjoining 
my own garden. During the two succeeding years its numbers increased 
steadily, and this led me to observe it specially. 
In the summer of 1914 the numbers seemed to reach a climax ; for, 
at the end of May or beginning of June in that year, examples sprang 
up in extraordinary abundance in all parts of the wood. They were often 
to be seen in groups, generally around the rotting stump, or “ stool,” of 
some coppiced hornbeam or beneath the dark shade of a thick bush of the 
same. They continued to spring up, though in decreasing numbers, 
until the late autumn, in spite of a severe drought then prevailing. About 
the end of November the phenomenon largely ceased, but on 15th January 
following (1915) I noticed one specially large and fine example beneath 
a bush. 
After this I saw no more Stinkhorns until about the first week in 
June, after which they again became numerous—so much so that a walk 
tnrough the wood was rendered quite unpleasant by reason of the all- 
pervading smell they emitted. As in the previous year, they grew largely 
in groups and flourished in spite of the extremely dry weather which was 
then again prevalent. Later, the appearance of fresh plants ceased almost 
entirely, but about the middle of September a new crop began to appear, 
and for some time examples were again abundant. After this, distract ions 
due to the war prevented further observation^, but I believe that in 
succeeding years the fungus appeared in normal numbers only. 
It was always interesting to watch the development of an individual 
Stinkhorn. First of all, one saw a small round white object, resembling 
a marble, growing half hidden among the fallen leaves of oak and horn¬ 
beam. This increased slowly and became eventually about the size of 
an ordinary hen's egg—in fact, it looked, both in colour and shape, just 
