162 
cile such a coarse word with the lovely tint of this Trametes, 
Rufescens is a word not freely used in describing fungi: it does 
not form the specific name of a single British Agaric. Fries 
apples ito the pileus and stem of Lactarius subdulcis, the 
pileus of L. czrcellatus, the gills in age of Hygrophorus cvinus 
and the stem and gills of Lactarius rufus, but not to the pileus 
which he calls éadz0-rufus. 
Rufescens really means becoming rufus, which is a yellowish- 
red, whereas rubescens is suggestive of blushing, as seen in 
Amanita rubescens and Rhizopogon rubescens. 
Fries applies this latter word to the interior of the stem of 
Inocybe pyriwdora, and he says of that peculiar-smelling 
fungus Extoloma ameides “ totus fungus rubescit.” 
But it is doubtful whether in using these words he had any 
such fine colour-distinction in his mind as some people have 
tried to make out. In describing Polyporus rufescens he says 
it is carneus, and of Boletus rubescens “ pileo rufescente, stipite 
carneque rufescentibus,” whilst under the two species we are con- 
sidering he adds a note that 7. rudbescens and T. Bulliardi are 
apparently close to each other, as each verges into “ fulvum vel 
rufum.” Now these are distinct-colours again, fuw/vus being the 
tawny of a lion and rufus is the word he uses for the zone on 
the stem of Cortinarius haematochelts. 
Dr. Quélet instals Trametes rubescens as the standard species 
with a most excellent description, his “incarnat rosé” exactly 
meeting the case, and it is clear that he has this fungus in his 
mind, but he includes Budliardi as a synonym, which is discon- 
certing, and refers them both to a form of Lenzates tricolor. Per- 
haps this is a case of wrongly lumping as he certainly was guilty 
in the matter of Pholiota aurea and Ph. spectabzlis. 
We cannot but think that this fungus is a much sounder 
species than many that have found a place in our Flora, present- 
ing as marked a colour-change on being wounded as Boletus 
luridus, Inocybe Godeyi or Agaricus haemorrhoidartus, and 
that if it is really Trametes Bulliardi then the description of 
this latter as given in our books is totally inadequate and must 
have been drawn up from dried specimens, as 1t entirely fails @ 
convey the slightest idea to the novice of the marked characteris- 
tics of this fungus in the fresh condition. ; 
On one previous occasion at least this Trametes would ieee . 
have excited curiosity—it may also have been a Sleds. 
specimen—it was in 1881 that the late Wm. Phillips, of Se a: 
bury, sent a.fungus to the Rev. M. J. Berkeley, and we sa ae 
Berkeley’s reply to Mr. Phillips, in which he says es ete 
is undoubtedly 7. rubescens, but I have always considere = 5 
same with Daedalea confragosa. Fnies’ description does ae 
accord with Bulliard’s figure or description. I found it 0 
