354 
Joumal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXX, No. 4 
Bresadola ( 6 ) and others as synonyms 
of Scopoli’s A. tabescens. A. glomera- 
tus described and illustrated in 1824 by 
Pollini ( 40 , p. 679), which, as he states, 
is an “Agaricus gymnop. aggregatus 
caespitosus saepius ramoso-connatus,” 
etc., is not included as a synonym by 
Bresadola, although in Saccardo’s Syl- 
loge Fungorum (43, p. 385) it is in¬ 
cluded in the list of illustrations of 
Clitocybe tabescens, or Collybia tabe¬ 
scens as he calls it, following Fries. 
With allowances for poor drawing, 
Pollini’s illustration might pass for a 
cluster of the sporophores of Clitocybe 
tabescens in which the bases of the 
stipes had anastomosed as a result of 
growth conditions. 
Fries, who clearly had but little 
familarity with the plant or plants 
which we now know as Clitocybe 
tabescens, added greatly to the con¬ 
fusion. In his “Epicrisis” in 1836 to 
1838 (17) he described, without having 
seen either of them, Agaricus tabescens 
under Tricholoma (17, p. 33) and A. 
gymnopodius, which he knew only 
from Bulliard’s illustration, under 
Flammula (17, p. 183), assuming that 
the spores were colored because the 
gills were. As synonyms of A. tabe¬ 
scens, Fries cited Scopoli’s description 
and illustrations by Battarra, Larber 
and Micheli, the latter being Micheli’s 
Plate 74, Figure 2, on which Persoon 
based his A. buxeus. None of these 
illustrations cited by Fries bears the 
slightest resemblance to Clitocybe 
tabescens as understood by Bresadola. 
In a later work in 1874 (18) Fries 
exhibited no greater familiarity with 
these species, retaining A. gymnodius 
under Flammula (18, p. 244) and 
transferring A. tabescens to Collybia 
(18, p. Ill), although uncertain as 
to whether or not the gills were de¬ 
current and whether the spores were 
colorless or colored. His account of 
the latter species is especially confusing. 
After its description as No. 344 on page 
111, in which he cites only Scopoli’s 
description and A. socialis in the sense 
of De Candolle (9) and Se3mes (49), 
he describes it again but differently in 
his appendix to Agaricus on page 319, 
again citing Scopoli’s description but 
adding this time Micheli’s Plate 74, 
Figure 2, on which Persoon (37, p. 190) 
based his A. buxeus in 1828. This 
illustration of Micheli represents his 
‘‘Fungus pileolo desuper lacero,” etc. 
(26, p. 158), which is a different 
species from that mentioned above as 
having been cited by Haller and upon 
which Scopoli based his A. tabescens. 
Since Fries does not cite the synonym 
which Scopoli gives in his description 
of A. tabescens, it appears that he 
disagrees with Scopoli’s use of this as 
a basis of his species, for on page 704, 
under addenda, he says: “P. 319. A. 
tabescens. Hie diversus est a supra n. 
344 citato. Utri synonymon Scopolii 
sit referendum, dubium.” Even if 
this be so, the writer can not see any 
justification for Fries’s making two 
kinds of A. tabescens out of Scopoli’s 
brief description. 
From the foregoing it is evident that 
there is considerable confusion and 
uncertainty as to just what species 
authors writing before Scopoli in 1772 
considered as synonyms of his Agaricus 
tabescens. However, it is virtually of 
no taxonomic value, and is even futile 
from the standpoint of accuracy to 
attempt to trace this species back to 
the days before the existence of bino¬ 
mial nomenclature. 
Owing to the universal acceptance 
of Fries’s work, the views held by him 
have been perpetuated in subsequent 
writings. Thus, in Saccardo’s “Sylloge 
Fungorum” (43, p. 385), which follows 
Fries, Micheli’s figure of his “Fungus 
pileolo desuper lacero, etc.,” is cited as 
an illustration of Collybia tabescens, as 
Saccardo calls it, although in the 
writer’s opinion Micheli’s figure does 
not even resemble the species. Per- 
soon’s Agaricus buxeus (37), which was 
based upon this illustrated species of 
Micheli’s, is accepted as a synonym of 
Agaricus (Collybia) tabescens by Win¬ 
ter (59, p. 852), and doubtfully so in 
Saccardo’s “Sylloge Fungorum” (42, 
p. 12). 
In the middle of the nineteenth 
century the history of the American 
plant which we know to-day as Cli¬ 
tocybe tabescens began. It was col¬ 
lected first in Ohio by Lea, who sent it 
to Berkeley. In 1847 the latter pub¬ 
lished a description of it (1), calling it 
Lentinus caespitosus. In 1868, sup¬ 
plemented by additional specimens of 
the plant collected by Ravenel in 
South Carolina, it was renamed Agari¬ 
cus (Pleurotus) caespitosus by Berkeley 
and Curtis (2), apparently on the 
advice of the latter, who stated that 
“this is certainly an agaric.” 
One year previous to this, however, 
Curtis (11, p. 85), in his catalogue of 
the indigenous and naturalized plants 
of North Carolina, lists “ Clitocybe 
caespitosus, M. A. C.” under Agaricus. 
Although Totten (53), on the strength 
of Curtis’ citation, used the name 
Clitocybe cespitosa for the plant we now 
know as Clitocybe tabescens, Curtis’s 
name must be regarded as a nomen 
nudum. Neither Clitocybe caespitosa 
Peck (31, p. 61) nor Clitocybe caespitosa 
