Feb. 15,1925 Root Rot of Grapevine Caused by Clitocybe Tabescens 357 
were larger and the caps not smooth, 
as Peck mentions in one place for his 
species, and because it never exhibited 
any evidence of an annulus even in 
the young stages, Peck’s plant having 
occasionally had an evanescent annulus. 
These points of difference again clearly 
are variable characters and the writer 
is of the opinion that both plants 
should be included as synonyms of 
Clitocybe tabescens in the sense of 
Bresadola. 
Murrill, in his monograph of the 
Agaricaceae of tropical North America 
{28) and in his monograph of the genera 
Clitocybe and Monadelphus in the 
North American Flora {29, p. 4%0~4%1), 
retains in Clitocybe the nonwood- 
loving caespitose species of Clitocybe 
and restricts the genus Monadelphus 6 
founded by Earle {15, p. 43%) "to re¬ 
ceive the caespitose species of Clito¬ 
cybe, to include only those that are 
wood-loving. 7 Murrill makes no men¬ 
tion of Clitocybe tabescens, and Bresa- 
dola’s determination that the plant we 
have known best in the United States 
as Clitocybe monadelpha is but a syno¬ 
nym of this species appears to have 
been overlooked entirely by him. The 
plant which is the subject of this 
paper is treated as Monadelphus caespi- 
tosus, based upon Berkeley’s Lentinus 
caespitosus. Morgan’s Agaricus mona¬ 
delphus, Miss Banning’s Clitocybe aqua- 
tica published by Peck, Peck’s Armil- 
laria mellea exannulata, and Wilcox’s 
Clitocybe parasitica are all given as 
synonyms, although the latter is pref¬ 
aced with a question mark. 
Various other synonyms of Clito¬ 
cybe tabescens not discussed here result 
from the raising of the older sub¬ 
genera to full generic rank or the 
transfer of a species to various other 
genera. Taxonomic notes of historical 
interest are given on this species by 
Lloyd {23, 24 ). The treatment of this 
species by Kauffman {22, p. 723) and 
by Coker and Beardsley {10, p. 106- 
107) is also of interest. 
There follows a chronological list of 
all the synonyms of Clitocybe tabescens 
in so far as they are known to the 
writer, those prefaced with a question 
mark being doubtful. Following this 
is a chronological list of all the illustra¬ 
tions of this species as far as they are 
known to the writer and believed to 
be correct, those prefaced with a 
question mark being doubtful. 
SYNONOMY OF CLITOCYBE TABESCENS 
(SCOP.) BRES. 
Agaricus tabescens Scop., FI. Carn. ed. 
2. 2: 446. 1772. 
Agaricus gymnopodius Bull., Herb. Fr., 
PL 601, Fig. 1. 1793. 
Agaricus socialis DC., FI. Fr. 6: 48. 
1815. Not A. socialis Fr., Ic. Hy¬ 
men. 1: PI. 49, Fig. 2. 1871; Hy¬ 
men. Eur., p. 83. 1874. 
?Agaricus glomeratus Pollini, FI. Ver. 3: 
679. 1824. 
Lentinus caespitosus Berk., Lond. Jour. 
Bot. 6: 317. 1847. 
Agaricus {Pleurotus) caespitosus Berk. 
& Curt., Jour. Linn. Soc. 10: 287. 
1868. 
Flammula gymnopodius (Bull.) Qu61., 
Champ. Jura Vosg. 2: 346. 1873. 
Clitocybe gymnopodia (Bull.) Gill., 
Champ. Fr., p. 162. 1874. 
Agaricus {Collybia) inarmillatus Schul- 
zer, Oesterr. Bot. Ztschr. 33: 256. 
1883. 
Agaricus monadelphus Morgan, Jour. 
Cine. Soc. Nat. Hist. 6: 69. 1883. 
Clitocybe monadelpha (Morgan) Sacc., 
Syll. Fung. 5: 164. 1887. 
Collybia tabescens (Scop.) Sacc., Syll. 
Fung. 5: 206. 1887. 
Pleurotus caespitosus (Berk, and Curt.) 
Sacc., Syll. Fung. 5: 352. 1887. 
Clitocybe aquatica Banning and Peck, 
Ann. Rpt. N. Y. State Mus. 44: 180. 
1892. 
Armiliaria mellea exannulata Peck, Ann. 
Rpt. N.Y. State Mus. 46:134. 1893. 
Clitocybe tabescens (Scop.) Bres., Fungi 
Trid. 2: 84. 1900. 
Clitocybe parasitica Wilcox, Okla. Agr. 
Exp. Sta. Bui. 49: 18. 1901. 
Monadelphus caespitosus (Berk.) Mur¬ 
rill, Mycologia 3: 192. 1911. 
ILLUSTRATIONS OF CLITOCYBE TABES¬ 
CENS (scop.) bres. 
Bulliard, Herb. Fr., PI. 601, Fig. 1. 
1793. (As Agaricus gymnopodius.) 
?Pollini, FI. Ver. 3: PI. 2, Fig. 6. 1824. 
(As Agaricus glomeratus.) 
Sicard, Hist. Nat. Champ., PI. 31, Fig. 
163. 1883. (As Agaricus gymno¬ 
podius.) 
Morgan, Jour. Cine. Soc. Nat. Hist. 6: 
PI. 4. 1883. (As Agaricus mona¬ 
delphus) ; also reproduced by Wilcox, 
Okla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 49: PI. 6. 
1901. 
6 It is of interest to note that this genus was given the variant spelling of “Monodelphus” by Earle in 
his generic description on page 432. This appears to be a typographic error, however, for it was spelled 
the usual way in his key on page 403. 
7 This is truly a superficial distinction for placing a group of species with the same general character in 
different genera. Even when collected carefully, it is not always clear whether these plants are growing 
from the ground alone or from buried wood, and, in case this point is not noted by the collector, the diffi¬ 
culty of making a correct determination of the species by these keys is increased. 
13952—25t-5 
