't • > I, ■ ■ 4>, •> \ ■ /■ ■', -r- ■' ', ' ■' ' , ’t.. V ,.'7.Av ' ^> ,»•; I-’' ■ > V , • ,' .' ■ --’^*'.aB ■■ . • -.v-'- f. ' \ '■:,^ V: ■ 'V- ;,• ■' ' ■' ■'. r „: .,.V. ' f -;-:/-i! • ;A/ :• ' : ■ ■■% . V;, • •• ■■ ^ '--v^ > ■ i 'I . ■.• = ■>- ‘ . .V-'isM <■' 5i' -‘ ■■ ^ V V ,'■/ A 1 y / « ;'• 'f -7, : S- *■ .. ' 5^ ^ k ■ . . ' . ' • . ■ ' • ^ ; . ) •“ . ' ' ^ ' ^ ■ fi . S',, u*^ . • ; , '',^‘ir - -• ■ ' < ■ ' ' ' -' '■ '-T . ‘ ■>.' ..^.'? '■■'V .« . • . y rvx '■^ . / '^ - , . ''* A •. 'i- f :Xr-Cri^ * rr^ L *1 ^ 2) v'v^ t \ W. G. FARLOW LT93m v.l Harbarb tHnifaers^itp FARLOW REFERENCE LIBRARY OF CRYPTOGAMIC BOTANY ^ -.vs- ^ ' , y -i I'k. ->■ ■■ '■■ ' ■ •s - ." C* * •.’ . A*. ks .V ■ -• J. ' \ . -*■ ■■■': :t,*| - •. •'/'' : •; V- ■'..'..r . V . . ’ - ' '■ ' ■ ,'iW . }t ' '■^' A^s T' •^. ' ■ ■■-; - T/ -' 1 j A ""-v - . ! rfr-'’ vj • f C v . k'1 Li. y .V/-* ; Jfe';', ^ .'.1' . •;• '. ■/■\ ' 'ri-: V" ' V v ' 'v'-f «•.' j? ; Va- ; ..■•• • L'- ; * '' •, . j j .., :’ \ .• ./‘- x ' C/ ' '• -/ ' '. -f*- *.7'^ '*■*' Ilf 7 -‘-i . .*>~ -1 '^' . ' *>" ■ ' .< . '. ^ v;y:,7,^' T‘\ '' v' /; %7‘i, -'v.,'. ^■' .V. ^ '• ■. .-■■ v.T?-> i.-. ..''iv -v V ' \-'>.-V\, , 7. ' , l;7-.; ^v;-: - ir-*' ^ ' KB' '.v kk , ' ■ .r. . ; ^ './K-v'-^', ■.. K s -'K- 7 /:>'■■ ■ yK'^'' '-VMr.:^' r':y7-'‘-:’ ■'' A,7,'V^ : ^ »;;■ ■ ' ’■ ■ ' ■-'■r-'r"'^;t”S';K'', ‘K.-/; ... • .'7 ' ^ 7 k-bb ' '■ 7'' '‘ I. ^■'. B, , . -{. . f K, .'■. ■' .+ 'rr » . ( ■ 1 n-' 1.^ 4.- . .' .' A 4^ 7'> > %■ •.. A » y ^ V ,7 • •/ \c I- \ • /' '> '^ ■' ^ ' ''' •■ ■' ■, ,■’ ^ ' 7’ ■ i < -. •■ ■ V . . • V >-:4 .« ' .'i V ■ ■' n ; ■1 >■ '\ . '-..kh; /■ ' ;■ . . M. , ■ .v- •. • -A ;:; . . .'■ <%■..' : /. --y ■ '■ . . . f ’^. v')v . ' / P^- . \>v S&.^;v,- / .:7’ W . . ' .''' • • ' K'-I, . 7 ' ■' -''^>77* /• '.'A ■ •; s . , ■ ' 7 -4 - ^ - - .» ' -jf . .j . .' ' rt ;■ '-v . _ ^ c*. ."v'- < ■•< • ^ • r' ...^. .. / > » . , / ’ ..; . , -. ' . - V v .-»■ .'.f I-' :/■'• '*v .iJ® ’ '/•^ fC A' ■* * :», 7. ■ ' '^■J ■ • ‘ I N DEX OF THE Mycological W ritings -OF- C. G. Lloyd. VOL. I, 1898=1905. CINCINNATI, OHIO, U. S. A. Liq3r>, /, I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from BHL-SIL-FEDLINK https://archive.org/details/mycologicalwriti01lloy CONTENTS. (Binding is advised in this order). INDEX. Mycological Notes, Nos. 1-18, A compilation of the Volvae of the United States, The Genera of Gastromycetes, The Geastrae, The Lycoperdaceae of Australia, New Zealand and neighboring islands. Notes on the Amanitas of the Southern Appalachians,* Letters Nos. 1, 2 and 3, ' Plates, Nos. 1-39, Missing numbers to complete sets will be sent on request made to the Lloyd Library, Cincinnati, Ohio, as long as the supply lasts. At present they can be furnished excepting “The Volvae” and Mycolog¬ ical Notes, Nos. I, 2, 3 and 4. ^Written by Prof. H. C. lioardslee. and published at the Lloyd Library uniformly with the series of C. G. Ll03d. It is inclinied in this Index. 3 EXPLANATION. From the time I was a mere lad Botany has afforded me my prin¬ cipal recreation. During the long years when it was necessary to de¬ vote most of my time to a commercial life in order to gain a livelihood, I found my chief pleasure to consist in studying and collecting plants. The larger i)art of my leisure time, my holidays, and, I suspect if the truth were told Sundays also, I roved the woods and studied vegetation. About ten years ago I became interested in Mycology. Prof. A. P. Morgan, of Preston, Ohio, gave me my first ideas on the subject. Then I began sending specimens to Prof. Ellis, who advised me regarding them, and then to Rev. G. Bresadola in Tirol, and to Prof. Patouillard of Paris. I shall always feel grateful to these gentlemen, for from them I gained a large part of what I know of the subject. To the great majorit}^ of persons Mycology is practically a closed book. This is not due to any inherent difficulty presented by the plants themselves, but to the condition of the literature. The bulk of that which is writ¬ ten on the subject is not sytematic but spasmodic. It seems to be history that when anyone takes up work wdth these plants he finds so much that he cannot determine, so much that is new (to him), that the greater part of his publications are isolated descriptions of “ new^ species. ’ ’ I feel that the incentive to this new species work is largely egotism in order that the worker may add his name to the plant names— but I am told that I am “morbid” on that subject. However this may be, the result is that it is impossible in practice to determine the most of fungi from these descriptions. These plants are of wide distribution, and have been “described” and “named” over and over again, until the “literature” has become an almost unfathomable maze of meaning¬ less and conflicting names. To clear up this entanglement as far as possible, appears to me the most desirable feature of the w^ork. And yet, the field is so vast that one man can cover but a very small part of it. I have been w'orking on the Gastrom3xeteb for four or five years, and have ])ublished the results as the}' appealed to me. This is an in¬ dex of the publications as far as the w^ork has gone. As it is desig¬ nated as “Vol. I”, the intention is evident that others are expected to follow'. I feel now' that it is no longer necessary for me to give 1113' time to business, (due to the liberality of my business partners, my two brothers J. U. & N. A. Lloyd) and can devote all my time to this w^ork from w'hich I get my greatest pleasure. The probabilities are there¬ fore that no accident interfering in the future, the publication w'ill proceed more rapidh'. In this index w'ill be found a list of “Synon3uns and Juggled Xanies . I do not claim that this is final nor that these names are buried for all time to come. “Synon3'ms” and to a large extent “Juggled Names” are matters of individual opinion, and the next man to w'ork over the field, undoubtedK' w'ill not agree w'ith me in entirety. They are practicall}' buried however, as far as ni}' future work IS concerned, and as a large part of 1113^ past time has necessarily been engaged m their obsequies I have raised a little epitaph to their niemorv. Mav IhOr). 4 INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIES. NOTE. Figures alone refer to pages of Mycological Notes: Gea. to “The Geastrae” : Aus to “The Fycoperdaceae of Australia, New Zealand, and neighboring islands.” Those so closely related to others that they may perhaps better be called sub-species, varieties or even forms are indicated by a star (*) (See article on page 7 of this index). Plants are indicated in this index by the names that I adopt for them now after a thorough study of the literature and specimens bear¬ ing on the conflicting nomenclature. In some instances my views have changed since I began working on the subject and the plants have been published under names not now adopted. These are indicated by foot note references to the names under which they w^ere published. If the flgures are in parenthesis it indicates that in this reference the plant was only partially considered. Page Page Arachnion Calvatia album . . . . 142 lilacina .... Drummondii. . . . Aus. 39 olivacea Aus. 37 Battarrea sculpta .... . . . (203) phalloides . . . . . Aus. 11 Castoreum Stevenii*. . . . . . Aus. 11 radicatum . . . Aus. 38 Battarreopsis Catastoma Artini . . . . 194 anomalum. . . Aus. 27 Bovista circumscissum . . (78) 122 brunnea* . . . . . Aus. 24 hyalothrix . . . . Aus. 27 - minor* . . . . 117 hypogaeum . . . . Aus. 27 nigrescens. . ... 117 Mueller i .. . . . Aus. 27 pila . . . . . . 116 (132) pedicellatum . . ... 121 plumbea . 115 subterraneum . . . (78) 122 tomentosa . . . 118 Cauloglossum Bovistella transversarium . . . . 137 ammophila . . (88) Chlamydopus aspera . . . (118)‘ Aus. 28 Meyenianus . . 134, Aus. 9 australiana . . . . Aus. 28 Clavogaster dealbata . . . 86 novo-zelandicus . . Aus 8 glabescens . . . . Aus. 28 Dictyocephalos Gunnii . . . . Aus. 29 curvatus . . . . ... 136 Broomeia Diplocystis congregata . . 193 Wrightii . . . . ... 141 Calvatia Qallacea caelata . . . . . . Aus. 35 Scleroderma . . . . Aus. 38 Candida . . . . Aus. 37 Geaster Fontanesii* . . Aus. 36 Arched (80)^ Gea.l9=Aus 19 gigantea . . . . . Aus. 36 arenarius Gea. 28 1 Bovista aspera. 2 Geaster Morganii. PAGE Geaster asper . . . • Gea. 18 Berkeleyi . .(l98)Aus. 19 Bryan tii . Gea. 16 coronatus. . . (Tl)^Gea. 31 Drummondii Aus. 16 floriformis (143) Gea. . Aus. 16 fimbriatus . . . • Gea. 36 foniicatus (70)^ (^28) (176) .... Gea 29, Aus- 21 giganteus* (68)^ Gea. 10'^ hygroinetriciis Gea. 8 limbatus . Gea. 23 mammosus . . • • Gea. 13 niinimiis(68) Gea.27, Aus. 21 mirabilis . Aus, 20 pectiiiatus ('2)^ Gea. 15, ... Aus. 18 plicatus . • . . Aus. 17 rufescens (144) Gea. 22, . Aus. 22 saccatus (78) (80)^ ( 111)^ Gea. 38% Gea. 37, Aus. 22 Schmidelii..Gea. 18, Aus. 19 simulans . Aus. 17 Smithii . . ... Gea. 21 striatulus (71) Gea. 12^^ . Aus. 1 6 triplex . . Gea. 25, Aus. 23 velutinus . Gea. 33, Aus. 21 Wehvitschii. .(77)’* Gea. 31’* Gymnoglossum stipitatum . Aus. 6 Qyrophragmium decipiens* . 196 Delilei (6%, (104), (111) 190 inquiiians* . 197 Texense* . 197 liypoblema lepidophorum . 140 Lanopila bicolor. . . ( 1 18) 1 90 1 Geaster fornicatus. i (ieaster deli atus H (leaster fenestratus. 4 tieaster hygrometricus var giganteus. r> ( .caster temiipes. ft t'.ea-ter lageniforniis. 7 (ica>tcr s.accatus var. major. '' Geaster Drummondii. 1* (ieaster radicaiis. 10 t'ovista lateritia. 1 Mitremyces Ravcnelii var. minor. IS Mycena.strum spinulosum. PAGE Lasiosphaera Fenzlii . 131 Lycoperdon cepaeforme* . . . Aus. 30 coprophilum . . . Aus. 34 cruciatum . . . (83), (112) dermoxanthum* . . Aus. 31 gemmatum ... Aus. 32 nigrum* . Aus. 30 polymorphum . . . Aus. 29 pratense . Aus. 31 pseudoradicans . 84 pusillum* . ... Aus. 30 piriforme . . . Aus. 33 stellatum . Aus. 32 tephrum . . . . . Aus. 34 Mesophellia arenaria. . . . . . Aus. 40 ingratissima . . . Aus. 40 pachytlirix . . Aus. 40 sabulosa . . . . . Aus. 40 Mitremyces cinnabarinus . . 126, (204) fuscus . . . . Aus. 41 luridus*. . . . . . Aus 41 lutescens . . . . 125, (202) Ravenelii . . . 126, (201) Tylerii . . . . . . 127'' Mycenastrum Corium (79)^^ 119, Aus. 24 Myriostoma coliformis . . . . . Gea. 6 Paurocotylis pila . Phellorina australis . . . Aus. 11 Delestrei . . . . . Aus. 10 strobilina . . . . . Aus 10 Podaxon aegyptiacus . . . . Aus. 5 Muelleri . . . . . Aus. 5 Polysaccum Boudieri* . . .... 184 f) Page Polysaccum confusum* , . . . . Aus. 13 crassipes'*' . . . . Aus 13 pisocarpiuin . . Aus. 12 tuberosum* . . . . Aus 13 Protoglossum luteum . . . , . (Aus. 42) Quelelia mirabibs . . 135, ( 185) Schizostoma laceratum . . , ... 192 Scleroderma aurantium (72)' Aus. 15 Cepa . . . .... Aus. 14 1 Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum. 2 Scleroderma vernicosum. H Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum. 4 Secotium rubigenum. Page Scleroderma flavidum . Aus. 14 Geaster (82) (144), Aus. 14 tenerum* . . . . (77)^ Texense ... Aus. 14 verrucosum (79)^ Aus. 15 Secotium acuminatum . 138 coarctatum . . .Aus. 7 erytlirocephalum . . Aus. 6 macrosporum . 139 melanosporum . . . Aus. 7 nubigenum . 139-^ Trichaster melanocephalus . . . .189 DESIGNATION OF VARIETIES AND FORMS. The longer I work with puff-balls, the more specimens I study, the more vague appears to me the distinction between species, varieties and forms. I have aliout arrived at the conclusion that there is in nature (or in the puff-ball world at least) no such thing as a species. We find plants of various degrees of resemblance or of difference. We sort together those that appeal to us as having the same characters and therefore we make what we call a species. AVe sort together others of a different character and call them another species. That is seemingly very simple but, the trouble is that about the time we get the characters of these two species fixed, some one sends in a collection of plants, interihediate, the members of which partake of the characters of both and the two theoretical species are invalidated. It seems to me that our various species are only expressions of various degrees of changes that the plants have undergone or are undergoing due to varying life conditions. If we had all the plants that now exist or have existed, I bGieve we would surely have a continuous series from the beginning to the end. Probably many of these connecting forms have disappeared, but among the puff-balls enough remain to lender their definite sorting into distinct species at the best, only approximate. The same can be said as to genera, and to a greater degree as to varieties and forms. The fact is, no one can define the amount of difference necessary to constitute a variety, a species or a genu^^. No svstem of nomenclature can attempt to give more than an approximate idea of the various degrees of resemblance between plants. There should unques- tionaVily be associated with each species such characters as oliservation teaches are common to a number of individual plants and then the plant that has these characters most strongly marked, most typically represents the species. If the points of difference between two lots of individuals are sufficient to be noted and described, the plants are entitled to a name, and a binominal name Is the simplest. It is therefore we believe, the best that can be used. To me a name as a variety is cumbersome. For example think of “Lycoperdon pirif'orme var. excipuliforme”. Nor can I Tiring myself to believe that any plant should be inflicted with such a name as ‘‘Lycoperdon piriforme excipuliforme” At the same time I recognize that plants very closely resembling each other should be marked in some way, and Fries’ system of simply starring such names impresses me as best. It is the system that has been adopted by me in this index and I shall use it in future. 7 SECONDARY INDEX. Index to plants not Gastromycetes and to Gastromycetes mentioned in the text. Those marked with a * were published as synonyms. Those with a as misdeterminations. Figures alone refer to pages of Mjxological Notes; Gea to ‘‘The Geastrae:” Aus. to ‘ Lycoperdaceae of Australia, New Zealand and neighboring islands:” Am. to “Notes on Amanitas of the Southern Appalachians” by H. C. Beardslee: Gas. to “The Genera of Gastromycetes:” Vol. to “Compilation of the Volvae ” Amanita abrupta . Vol. 7, Vol. 14 adnata . 11, Vol. 9 afhnis . V’ol. 21* agglutiiiata. Vol. 9, Vol. 15, Am. 4* aspera. . Vol. 7 aurantiaca . Vol. 21* baccata . Am. 2 badia.. . Vol. 21* llarlae . • . . . ... Am. 4* bulbosa ... ... Vol. 21* Caesarea . Vol. M, Vcl. 13 Candida . Vol. 6, Vol. 14 Ceeiliae. • • . Vol. 9*, Vol. 21* chlorinosma .... Vol. 7, Vol 15 citrina . Vol. 2r"-' Coccola . Am. 4* (laiicii)es ... . Vol. 7, Vol. 14 excel sa . Yoi. 0 farinosa . . Vol. 9, Vol. 16, Am. 4 flavo-rubens . . . Vol. 7. Vol. 15 formosa . . Vol. 21* Frostiana . Vol. 5, Vol. 13 incarnata . Vol. 21* lenticularis . Vol. 7 livida . Vol. 21* magiiivelaris • . . Vol. 4, Vol. 13 . Vol. 4 monticulosa Vol. 7, Vol. 14 muscaria . . . . Vol. 5 muscaria var. cocciiiea . . Am. 8 muscaria var. major . . Vol. 21* muscaria var. minor . . Vol *U* . Vol. 7 ni\alls . . \ol. 9, \ ol. 16, Am. 6 . Vol. 9*, Vol. 16* pantherina . Vol. 4 pellucidula . . .Vol. ;i*, Vol. bl* l)halloides . Vol. 3 polyiwrainis . . . Vol. 6, Vol 14 prairiicohi .... Vol, 7, Vol. 15 pubescens..Voi. !), Vol. 16, Am 6 piLsilla Vol. 9, Vol. UK Vol. ‘>1* Kavcnelii .... Vol. 6, Vol. 14 . Vol.3, Vol. 13 rubesccns . y russuloides . . 11, Voi. 5, Vol 'l4 . Vol. 9*, Vol. 15 . Vol. 6. Vol. 14 t'padu-ca . y^^l 21* Sl'f'-t.! ... .11, V„1. 3, V,;, 13 ■ • • Vol. 7 Amanita strangulata . .11, Vol. 9, Am. 6 strobiliformis . . Vol. 6 umbina .... . Vol. 21* vaginata . . . . . Vol. 8, Am. 2 velosa . . Vol. 9, Vol. 15 verna . . Yo\. 4* virescens . .... Vol. 21* viridis . . Vol. 21* virosa .... . Vol. 4 volvata . . Vol. 9, Vol. 15 Anthuras l)orealis . . . 132, 183. 188 Bolbitius radicans . . . . 18* sordidus . . . . Boletus Betula . . . . . • • . 97, 105 Morgan! . . . . 98* Kusselli .... . 97*. 105 Bovista dealbata .... . 127 nigrescens . . • • . . 121t, 154f pi la . Bovistella paludosa . . . . Calvatia caelata .... gigantea .... ■ . . . 166, 19U pachyderma . . . 140f rubro-flava . . . • • • 90, 149 saccata .... . 166, 187 Sinclairii . . . umbrina . . . . Catastoma anomalum . . . . L. 1 circiunscissum . juglandaeforme. Cauloglossum T rails versarium . 154, 170 Clathrus cancellatus . . columnatus . . Claudopus nidulans. . . . . Clitopcilus tarda . Clitocybe gilva . illudens .... monadelpha . . . tabescens . 8 Clitocybe tarda . . 48* Collybia acervata var. laclinophylla . . 39 amabilipes .... 40* l)utyracea . . . . . 30, 52 borealis . . 44, 51* colorea . . 37 (Iryophilla . . . 40 fuliginella .... 36 hariolora . ... 43 inolens .... .... 52 laclinophylla. . . . . 39*, 52* luteo-olivacea . . . . 37* myriadophylla . . . 37 platy])hvlla . . 34 rad cata . ... 20, 34 spinulifera .... . 39* stipitaria var. roliusta • • ... 43 striatiilata . ... 35 strictipes . . 38 tenuipes .... ... 42 velatipes . . . ... 41 zonata . . . . . 19, 43 Coprinus angulatus . . 46 Boudieri . .... 47"^ intermcdius . . . . 146* miniato-doccosus . . . 49 radians . . 145 Craterium microcrater . .. . 64* Crucibuium vnlgare . . 88t Cyathus stercoreus . . . . . . 88 striatus . ... 100 Wrightii . . . . 154 Dictybole Texensis . . 130 Diplocystis Wrightii . . . 193 Echiodontium tinctorium . . . 3 Flammula gyinnopodius . . . ... . 54* Khodoxanthus . . . ... 17 Fav olus Canadensis .... . 59^- Europaeus ... . 59 Femes applanatiis .... . 60J lencophaeus . . . . . 60 Qeaster ambiguiis .... • . A us. 16+ asper . 143, 172t Berkeleyi . 198, Gea. 19t Bryantii . . . . . 171, 187 coronaius . . 128 fimbriatus..l55t, 172, 186, Aus. 23t florit'orniis .... . 171. Gea. 43 fornicatns . . . 128, 155t hvgrometricus . . . . 172 limbatiis . . .71, Gea. 237 Lloydii . . 50. Gea. 35 Qeaster mammosus.71|, 1 72, Aus 167, Gea. 127 minimus . . . . 112, 1727 pectinatus . 72 rufescens . . . .... 144, 186 saccatus . . . 104, 143, 155i, 171 Schmideli .... . 187 subiculosus . . . . . . . Aus. 20 triplex . . . 104, 143, 202 velutinus . . . . vittatus . Qomphidius Khodoxanthus . . . 18* Qomphus Khodoxanthus . . 18* Humaria Lloyd iana . . . . 50 Hydnangium Kavenelii . 152 liydnum tinctorium . . . Hypocrea alutacea . .... 99, no Lloydii . . . . 87, 99, 156 mesenterica . . . 50 Lentinus caespitosus . . . . 17* Lecomtei. . . . . . 60* tenaciformis . . . . ... . .19* Lepiota acutesquamosa . . 7 Americana . . . ... 5 asperula.. . . . . Badhami . . . . . . . 6, 54 carneo-annulata . 8* cepaestipes . . . 6 farinosa .... ■T Fries ii . i gracilenta. . . . 144 haematosperma . . 54* Morgani . . . . ... 4, 11, 144 naucinoides . . . ■.. . 7* naucinus .... procera . 5 procera form rubescens .... 5 rachodes .... rubrotincta . . . . 5, 11, 30 . 8 subtomentosa • . 145 Lycoperdon atropurpureum . . 168 calvescens . . . . 152 cepaeforme . . 167 cruciatum .112, 153,168, Aus. 32 dermoxanthum . . 167 echinatum .... . 168 gemmatum . . . . 167 piriforme . . 167 polymorphum . . . 167 pratense . . ... 166, 186 pulcberrimum . . . 153 pusillum . . . .... 167 samoense . . . 50 velatum . . . . 168 Wrightii . . . . . 153 9 Lysurus aiistraliensis Marasmius cohaereiis ■ iiigripes • • Mesophellia arenaria . . Mitremyces cinnabarinus lutescens Raveiielii • • . . . 183 ... 39 . 46 Alls. 40t 143, 202, 204 . . 143, 202 . . 201, 202 Mutinus elegans . 154 Mycena cohaerens . cyanothrix . . . ' . 56^ Mycenastrum Corium . "9, 131 Myriostoma col i forme . 156 Nyctalis asterophora . 61 Panus dorsalis . 59* illudens ... • • 19* rudis ..... ... 60 Paxillus Havidus . 18* gigaiiteus • ■ .... . 160 Peziza adusta . 64* Phallus Ravenelii . 154 rubicundus . 155 Phylloporus Rhodoxanthiis . . . 55 Pleurotus (‘aespitosiis . 17* nidulans . 59 siibpalmatus . . . 51 Pluteolus coprophilus . 18 Pluteus admirabilis . . 14 alveolaris ....... . . 51* cervinus ... .12 ceri'inus (scaly form) . 13 cervinus var. viscosus ... 13 graiuilaris . I4 longistriatus . I4 nanus . . lomentosuliis . . 15 . 15,48* umbonatus . . 15 Poda.xon angyptiacus . . candnomalis . loandensis pi.stillaris . . . Poria fnmo^a . Poly porus fueco-maculatus • ■ • . L. 1 Aus. 6, L. 1 • • • Aus. 6 ■ Aus. 5 • ... 49 ■ • . . 49 Psalliota campestris . . . . 26 campestris, var. hortensis . 27 comp tula . 28 exserta . . 28 placomyces . . . 27 silvatica . 27 silvicola . . . 28 Pterula fascicularis . 50 Scleroderma columnare . L. 1 Geaster . . 144 tenerum . . Aus. 15 Texense . 152 verrucosum . 79 Secotium acuminatum, ... . . 200 erythroceplialum . . . . 200 leucocephalum . Aus. 8 Malinvernianum . 174 niibigenum . 199 scabrosum . Aus. 8 Simblum rubescens . . 149 sphaerocephalum . 149 Strobilomyces strobilaceus . . . 20 Torrendia pulchella . < . 131 Tremellodon gelatinosum , . 147 Tricholoma cerinns . 42^* hordum . 35* praefoliatum . 35'* rutilans . . 53 Tylostoma Leveilleanum . 174 mammosum . Aus. 9 Mollerianum . 187 obesum . , . 135t Wightii . Aus. 9 Urnula Craterium . . 64 microcrater . 64* Volvaria bombycina ... . 18, Vol. 10 emendatior . . . Vol. 12, Vol. 17 gloiocephala . 11, Vol. 12 Loveiana . 11, Vol. 10 Peckii ..... . Vol. 10’, Vol. 16 plumulosa . 9 pubescentipes . 9, Vol. 11, A^ol. 17 pusilla . 9, 31, Vol. 21* speciosa . Vol, 12 striatula . . .9, Vol. 11, Vol. 16 Taylorii . Vol. 11 temperata . 9* umbonata ... .... 10 villosavolva . 31 A'isPAOQ 1 volvacea . 18,’ Vol. 11 10 INDEX TO MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS “Albino” Geiister, An . 202 Albany, N. Y . 150 Amende Honorable . 63 Arachnion, The genus . 141 Atkinson, “Mushrooms, edible, poisonous, etc” . 55, 87 Basidia .... Gas. 5 Battarreopsis, the genus . 194 Beardslee, H. C., — Boletus betula..97 Berkeley, 51. J. . 173 Berlin . . 175 Boudier, E. . 164 Bovista, The genus . . . 114 Bovista and Bovistella . 85 Bovistae The 113 British ^luseum. The . 174 Broomeia, The genus . 193 Burgin, C. A. and Dallas, E. H. “Among the Mushrooms” • • 61 Burnap, good work by. . . 125 Burt, Prof. A. E . 151 Cambridge, 5Iass . 151 Capillitium . Gas. 6 Catastoma, The genus. . 121 Catastoma, another species . . . 132 Cauloglossum, The genus .... 137 Chlamydopus, The genus .... 134 Colors, Standard of . 10 Conidial spored Gastromycetes. . 199 Cragin, Prof, his ambitions ... 51 Curtis collections. The . 152 Dictyocephalos, The genus . . .136 Difference of Opinion . 127 Diplocyst's, The genus . 141 Dried specimen descriptions • 31 Dza-5Vahp-abe-sah . 188 Farlow, Prof. AVm. . . 151 Fallow. W.G.-Hypocrea Alutacea.llO Festin 5Iycologique, Un . 163 Fomes of Europe . 21 Fries, Fllias . 161 Fries’ Drawings 161 Fries’ Herbarium . i70 Geaster fornicatus in England . . 176 “Geaster fornicatus (Hudson) Fries”— Cui Bono . . 110 Geaster, Notes on . 142 Geasters, stipitate and sessile . .112 Gejip, Antuny . 197 Gleba . Gas. 3 Hariot, P . 157 Hennings, Dr 175 Herbst, 5Vm. “Fungal Flora of the Lehigh Valley” . 48 Hollos, Dr. on Gastromycetes . . 93 Hypoblema, The genus .... 140 .Jesuits, Order of . 131 Kew . 173 Knox, Wm. Sketch book . . 20 Lanopila, The genus . 190 Lasiophaera, The genus . 191 Leiden . 175 Lepiota, The genus . 4 Letter from the Orient . 128 Library Building, New ... .96 Linnaean Herbarium, The . . . .174 Lloydella, The genus . 51 Lycoperdon, Le genre en Europe. .164 “Lycoperdon”, Kakava . 204 5Iassee, Geo . 174 5Iagnus, Dr . . 176 Macbride, “The North American Slime-Moul'^s” . 32 Micro-photographs ... 120, 201 Microscope, N’abusez pas dll. . . .177 5Iiddlebury, Vermont. ... 151 5Iitremyces, Distribution of . . 146 5Iitremyces, The genus . 123 5Iitremyces the name . . . .69-124 Mycenastrum, The genus . . 119 Mycologists who work like crawfish walk . 100 Myriadoporus, (The genus) ... 3 Name Jugglers, Data for . . . .129 Name Jugglers, The logic of . 200 Nomenclature .... 23, 63, 100, 147, 148, 169, 200 Notes of Travel ..... 149, 157, 173 Paris, France . 157 Patouillard, Prof. N . 157 Peck, Chas . 150 Persoon, Biography of . 158 Persoon’s Herbarium . 175 Peridioles . Gas. 6 Peridium of Gastromycetes . . Gas. 2 Phalloid Egg . 83 “Pila” The name . 132 Pisolithius, The name . 186 Pluteus, (“The genus”) . 12 Polysaccum, The name . • 186 Psalliota, The genus .... 25 Psalliota, (various species) ... 29 P. T. Species . . . 44 Puff ball Circulars . 56 Queletia, The genus. . . . . 135 Rafinesque’s “Pipe Dream” . . . 129 Review of “The Geastrae” . . . 109 Rolland,L . 157 Romell, L . 160 Schizostoma, The genus . 192 Spore prints . 64 Spores . Gas. 8 Stem of Gastromycetes .... Gas. 3 Sterile bases . Gas. 8 Sweden ... 160 Thaxter, Prof. R . 151 Trichaster, The genus . 189 Tylostomeae, The . 133 Types . 188 Upsala, The museum at . 162 Volvaria, The small species .... 9 Washington, D. C ....... . 149 11 INDEX TO PLATES VOLUME I Arachnion album . . . . 16' Hypoblema lepidophorum . . 14 Eattarrea phalloides Battarrea Stevenii* .... . 28 Lanopila bicolor . . .4, ^ 18 . 28 Lasiospliaera Fenzlii . . . 19 Battarreopsis Artini. . 22 Lycoperdon polymorphiim . . 34 Bovista minor* . . 3 “ pratense . . . . 34 ‘ ‘ nigrescens . . 3 Mesophellia arenaria . . - . 39 “ pila . . 2 Mitremyces cinnabarinus . . . .8 “ plumbea . . 1 “ lutescens . . . . 9 “ tomentosa, .... . 4^ “ Ravenelii . . . . . 9 Bovistella aspera. ... 4, ^ 33 ‘ ‘ Tylerii . . . . 9« ‘‘ aiistraliana.. . . 33 Mycenastrum Corium. . . 5 Broomeia coiigregata . . . . 21 Phellorina Delestrei . . . . 27^ Calvatia caelata .... . 36 “ strobilina . . 27 “ Candida . . 35 Podaxon aegyptiacus . . . . 25 ‘ ‘ gigantea . . 37 ‘ ‘ Muelleri . 25 “ lilacina . . 35 Polysaccum crassipes*. 29 “ olivacea . 35 “ pisocarpium. . . 29 Castoreum radicatum . 38' ‘ ‘ tuberosum* . . .29 Catastoma anomalum . 32 Queletia mirabilis . . 10 circimiscissum . 6 Schizostoma laceratum . 20 “ hyalothrix. . . . . 32 Scleroderma aurantium. . . . 3P “ Miielleri . . . . 32 ‘ ‘ Cepa . . 31 ‘ ‘ pedicellatum . . . 7 ‘ ‘ flavidum . . . .30 ‘ ‘ subterraneum 7 “ Geaster . . . . 30 Caiiloglossiim transversarium. 1 2 “ Texense . . . . 31 Chlamydopus Meyenianns .10 “ verrucosum . . 3P Dictyocephalos curvatus . . . 11 Secotium acuminatum. . . . 13 Diplocystis Wrightii . . . . 15 “ coarctatum . . . . 26 Gyrophragmium decipiens* 23 “ erythrocephalum . 26 ‘ • Delilei . 24 “ macrosporum . . . 13 ‘ ‘ inquinans* 24 “ melanosporum . . . 26 “ Texense* .24 Trichaster melanocephalus .17 1 Correct error ‘*arachiiin”. 2 A species very? to me now. a l.abeled Bovista aspera. 4 Correct spelling “radicatns”. 5 Misdetermined Bovista lateritia. (j Labeled Mitremyces Ravenelii var. minor. 7 Correct spelling *‘Delastrei”. 8 Correct spelling “•aurantiacnra'’. !t Correct spelling “verrncosum”. 12 INDEX TO CONTRIBUTORS’ NAMES The published lists of Contributors who have aided us in the work by collecting specimens are by no means complete. The list of the for¬ eign specimens, received by me during my previous stay in Paris, has not yet been published, nor of those now awaiting me at my Paris address, ( lOT Boulevard St. Michel ). Nor yet of those that I found at 1113'- home address (224 West Court St , Cincinnati, Ohio), on 1113" re¬ turn from Samoa, (March 1905). All the packages received have been acknowledged 133^ letter and lists will be printed as soon as possible. Aiken W. H., Ohio . 101 Arnould L., France ..... 101 Arrick E. J., Ohio . 73 Arthur J. C., Indiana . 80 Atkinson Geo. F., New York ... 67 Bain S. M., Tennessee . . 106 Baker C. H., Pennsylvania. . . . 106 Baker K. T., Australia . L. 1 Baldwin Dorothy A., Maine.. 106, L. 3 Baldwin D. D.. Hawaii . . . 106, L. 3 Barrett Miss, Jamaica . 101 Bartholomew E., Kansas ■ . . .89 Bates Rev. J. AI., Nebraska. 106, L. 3 Bates Win. C., Boston 67 Beardslee II. C., North Carolina. 66-101 Bell Pldith, Ohio . 106 Bertolet A. S., Chicago. 101, 106, L. 3 Bessey C. PI , Nebraska . . 89, 106 Bethel E., Colorado . 101 Bezzi Alario, Italy . 106 Bilgram H., Philadelphia .73, L. 3 Bird II. A., New Jersey . . . 106 'Blackford E. B.AIrs. Boston 67, 106 Blasdale W. C., California . 106, L. 3 Bogue E. E., Alichigan.. . . 106, Jj. 3 Bohn AI. G., Ohio .... 73, 89, L. 3 Botanic Garden, Saharanxnir In¬ dia . . . . L. 1 Boudier E., France . 66 Brace L. J. K.. Bahamas . . . . L. 1 Braendle Fred. J., Washington. . 67, 73, 89, 101, 106, L. 3 Brandegee T. !S., California . 73 Bresadola Rev. G., Tirol . . .66, 101 Brigham Dr. W. T. Hawaii Jj. 3 Brown C. E., Wisconsin. 101, 106,1^. 3 Brown Robert, New Zealand . . L. 1 Buchanan R. E., Iowa. .... 106 Burgin Caroline A., Philadelphia .... 65, 73, 76, 89, 106, L. 3 Burke E. V., California. 101, L. 3 Burke Pearson, Alabama . L. 3 Caldwell Henry AI., Tennessee . ... 106, L. 3 Cameron J. H., Canada . 106 Castle Aliss C., D. Hawaii . . . .101 Cavara F., Sicily . 101 Cave G. H., British India. . . . L. 1 Clark Geo. L., Alassachusetts . . 73 Clute W. N., New A^ork, .... 101 Converse Dr. R. V., Ohio . . 89 Cook Dr. N. AI., Alinnesota . . . .89 Crosby S. S., Alassachusetts - . . 73 Cummings Clara E., Alassachusetts . 101 Dallas Airs. Geo. AI., Pennsylvania 67, 74, 89, 101, 106, L. 3 Damazio L., Brazil . . L. 2 Davis Dr. N. S., Alississippi. . . L. 3 Davis S., Alassachusetts . . . . . 67, 74,90, 101, 106, L. 3 Dawson C. AV., (3hio . 106 Dean A. L., Alassachusetts . . . 102 Deane AValter, Alassachusetts. 90, 107 Dearness J., Canada . L. 3 Demetrio C. H., Alissouri . . . .L. 3 Denniston R. H., Wisconsin. . . L. 3 Dinter Kurt, AVest Africa . L. 1 Donnelly T. R., Canada • . 107, L- 3 Dorner H. B. • • . 90, L. 3 Duggar B. AI., Alissouri . L. 3 Dunn Aliss Jessie, New Zealand. L. 1 Earle F. S., Alabama . 90 Eastwood Alice, California.. • 90 Ehrhorn Ed. AI., California... 107, L. 3 Ely E. P., California . . . ..74, 76, 90, 101, 107, L. 3 P’awcett AVm., Jamaica. . . . 101, 107 Felippone Dr. F., Chili . L. 1 P'ernald AI. L., Alassachusetts . . 74 Fessenden Geo. B., Alassachusetts. 74 Fisher G. L., Ontario . L. 3 Fischer O. E., Alichigan . . . 101, 107 Fitzgerald Alary Aliss, North Caro¬ lina . L. 3 Fletcher James, Canada • . . . L. 3 Freeman AV. G., Barbados . . L. 1 Gardner T., Pennsylvania . 74 Garman H., Kentucky . . . 107, D. 3 Gill AValter, Australia . . . L. 1 Gillot X., France . . . 107 Glatfelter Dr. N. AI., Alissouri . • . . 74, 90, 102, 107, L. 3 Gollan Wm., British India . • L. 2 Grafton Airs. K..AV., Alississippi. L. 3 13 Greata L. A., California . . 65, 74, 90, 102, L. 3 Griffiths Davis, Washington • 90, L. 3 Guilfoyle W. K. Australia . L. 1, L. 2 Hamilton Alex. G., New South Wales . 107 Hard M. E., Ohio . L 3 Harper E, T., Chicago . 90, 102, L. 3 Harper R. M., New York . 90 Harris Elizabeth, Massachusetts. 102 Harris W., Jamaica. . . • • 107 Harshberger J. W., Philadelphia. L. 3 Hay G. U., Canada • . . 107 Hays Ella K., New York . .65 Hedgcock G. G., Nebraska • 102 L. 3 Hennings P., Germany . 107 Herbst Dr Wm., Pennsylvania . . 65, 74, 107 Herbstreit Rob't.. Ohio. . . 1()7 Hill A. I., British Columbia. 107, L. 3 Holden Wm., Ohio . 107 Hollos Dr. L., Hungary . 67, 90, 102 Holmes E. M., England . 102 Holway E, W. D., Iowa . 91 Horton Rev. T. C. Texas . .107, L. 3 Howard A. Barbados .... 102, 107 Hume H. H., Florida. . - .76, 91, 107 Huntsman Frank, Ohio . 102 Ichimura T., Japan . . . ■ ... 102 Jaap Otto, Germany . . . 107 .Tames Davis L., Ohio . 102, 107, L. 3 Jenks Chas. W., Massachusetts . 107, L 3 .Tekyll W., .Jamaica .... 102, L. 1 Katzenstein O., North Carolina.. 102 Kelsey 11. P., North Carolina . . L. 3 Kennedy P. B., Nevada . . .107, L. 3 Knox Wm., Ohio . 91 Krueger Wm., Germany . . 107 Lagarde, Prof. J., France .... 107 Lagerheim G., Sweden . 102 Laing Robt. M., Australia . . . L. 1 Lamison J. G., Ohio . 107 Langenbeck Mrs. Karl, Ohio . . . 91 Lemay Rev. P., Canada . . . . 1^. 3 Lindahl Dr , Ohio . 107 Lloyd J. U., Ohio . 102 Long W. H. Jr., Texas . L. 3 T.iOngyear B. ( )., Michigan . . .66, 91 Lordly E. 1)., Nova Scotia.. . . .L.3 hunt Wm., Saint Kitts ... . . L. 1 iMacb'ide T. H., Iowa .... 65, 74 Mackintosh R. B., [Massachusetts . 108, L. 3 [Macmillan H. F., Ceylon . .L. 1, L. 2 .Macoun John, Ottawa. . . .102,108 [McClatchie A . J., Arizona 74 [Mcllvaine Chas. [Maryland . 108, L. 3 MacSwain John, Prince Edwards Islands . . L. 3 Magnus P., Berlin . . . . 74, 91, 108 [March J. W., Oregon.. ... Jj. 3 [Martinez M., Mexico . 108 [Mead T. L., Florida. . 108 Memminger Ed. R., North Caro¬ lina . 75, 91 Miller James, Ohio . 102 Milner S. G., Michigan . 108 MiniiHsota Botanical Survt y . . 65 Miyabe Kingo, Japan . L. 1 Moffat W S., Illinois ... 102 Montgomery C. E., New Hamp¬ shire . . . 75, 91, 102, 108, L 3 Moore AYm. L., Texas . 108 Morgan A. P , Ohio.. 91, L. 3 Morris C. H., Ohio. • . . 75 Morris Geo. E., Massachusetts . 75, 91, L. 3 Nelson John, Kentucky. . 102 Nelson N. L. T., Minnesota. . . L. 3 Newbakt-r J. J., Pennsylvania • L. 3 Nishida Toji, Japan .... 102,108 Noble Mrs. M. A., Florida . 108, L. 3 Page H., Boston . . . 91, lO-S Pammel L. H., Iowa . 75 Panton E. Stunrt, Jamaica ...LI Parish S. B. California . . . 75, L. 3 Patouillard N., France. 67, 91, 102,108 Patterson Mrs. Flora W., AVash- ington . 66, 75, 108 Paul J. T., Australia . L. 1 beck Chas. H., Albany. 91, 102, 108, L.3 Percival Mrs M. S., Tennessee . 108, L,3 Pierce Airs. F. A., Massachusetts. .75 Pirn Greenwood, Ireland .... 102 Piper C. V., AVashington . . 102, 108 Please C E., Florida . L. 3 Pond (Juincy, Alassachusetts . .75 Poteat \V. L., North Carolina L. 3 Preston C. E., Alassachusetts . . 102 Prince E. S. Alinnesota . 108 Proudlock R. L., British India . L. 2 Rathbun F. R., New York L. 3 Rea CarKton, England. 66, 102 Reader F. AI., Australia . . 108, L. 2 Rick Rev. J. Brazil . L. 2 Ricker P. L., AVashington .... 66 Robinson C. B., Nova Scotia . . 102 Rolfs \\ H., Florida .... 66, 75, 92 Romell L., Sweden . 66 Rorer James B.. Connecticut • 67, 75 Sams Airs., Florida . . 67,75, 92, 102 Sanger Susan J , Boston ... .92 Sargent F. L., Alassachusetts. . .75 Schumo L. L., Philadelphia L. 3 Sedgwick Aliss Grace, Ohio. . . L. 3 Sel1)y A. 1)., (Ohio ... 76 Selby J. Gilljert, West Virginia. 76, 92 Sewall Alargaret L., AVashington, L 3 Seymour A. B., Alassachusetts . 92 Shear C. L. Washington . . 76, 92 Shel ion E. P.. Oregon . 102 Smith Jared G., Hawaii.. .... 102 Solerzano Dr. AI. AL, Alexico. . L. 1 Sterling E. B., Colorado. . 102 Stevens F. L., North Carolina . ..108 Stevens R. H., Colorado .... 108 14 Stockberger W. W., Ohio . • . . L. 3 Stone G. E., Massachusetts . . .103 Stoneman ^Nliss B., South Africa. L. 1 Streeter Mrs. Hannah, Philadel- pliia . 92 Stuart Win., Indiana ... 76 Suksdorf W. N., Washington .. . . 76, 92, L. 3 Stuntz Steve C., Wisconsin . . . 66 Teeters VV. J., Iowa . 92 Tepper J. G. O., Australia . 108, L. 1, L. 2 Thaxter Prof. R., Massachusetts 108 Trabut L., Algiers . L. 1 Trask Mrs. Blanch, California . L. 3 True Dr. H. L., Ohio. 67, 76, 108, L. 3 Tucker Susan, Washington. .109, L. 3 Tyler F. J., Washington .... 109 Van Bainbeke Chas., Belgium., . 103 Voigt A. L., Michigan. . L. 3 Vreeland F. K., New York . 92, 103, 109, L. 3 AVakeman C. L., New York . . . 92 AValdron L. R. Micliigan . 76 AValmsley AV. H., Philadelphia. L. . 3 AVarner Mrs. A. R., New Hamp¬ shire . ... 109 AVarner H. E., AVashington . . . . . 92, 103, 109, L. 3 AA^atson I.,. H., Chicago . .92, 103, 109 Watts AV. AV., Australia . . . . L. 1 Webster Hollis, Alassachusetts. . . 103, 109 AA^harton A. C., Mississippi . L. 3 AA'hetstone Mary S., Minneapolis . 67, 76. 103, 109 AVilcox E. AI., Oklahoma . . . . 66 AVilling T. N., Assiniboia . D. 3 AVinters A. C., Oregon . 92 AVisconsin Alyc. Club . 109 AVood J. Medley, South Africa . L. 1 AA^right Mrs. Eugene, Michigan. . 76 Abates L. G., California . . . 109 L. 3 A^oshinaga T., Japan . 109, L. 1 15 Synonyms and Juggled Names Index of synonyms and plants imperfectly described, imperfectly known or based on imperfect material. Also juggled names. NOTH- — Figures alone refer to pages of Mycological Notes; Gea. to “The Geastrae:” Aus. to “Lycoperdaceae of Australia, New Zealand, &c:” T. to “Tetters.” Agaricus ocreatus . . . , Arachnion aurantium Areolaria sculpta • . . strobilina ... Astraeus hygrometricus . stellatus . . . Battarrea attenuata . . Muelleri Tepperiana . . Bovista ammophila . • • anomala . . . argentea ■ aspera .... bicolor .... Candida .... circumscissa . d*"alhata . . . . debreceniensis . gigantea . . . liyaiothrix . . bypogaea . . . juglandaeformis lateritia . . . . , lepidophora . . , lilacina . . • maxima .... ^Montana . 3Inelleri . . . obovata . olivacea . . . ovalispora . . , paniiosa .... stuppea .... sa})terraiiea . . tosta ... ta])acina . . . . tiinicata .... veliitina . . . Broomeia guadalupensis . Calostoma acruginosiim . cinnabarinum . japoniciim . . microsporum . . ... 195 . ... 142 .... 203 Aus. 10 . • Gca. 6 .... 172 (136) 150 . . Aus. 12 . . Aus. 12 .... 88 . . Aus. 27 ... 190 118 Aus. 28 .... 190 .... 122 .... 122 180, 190 . . 122, 171 . . Aus. 36 . . Aus. 27 . . Aus 27 .... 199 118, 190 .... 140 . . Aus. 35 • . Aus. 36 .... 117 . . Aus. 27 . ... 117 Aus. 37 . ... 116 .... 190 .... 180 .122 190 . . .117 .... 171 . . . 182 .... 193 . . Aus. 41 .... 126 . . 201 .... 202 Calvatia aurea . 11, 32, 90 iiuitJct . Bovista . . . 166 cyathiformis. . . . . 166, Aus. 35 favosa . . . . . . Aus. 36 fragilis . . 166 hiemalis . . . . . 166 maxima . . 166, Aus. 36 paludosa ... . 88 primitiva . . L. 1, Aus. 36 Catastoma debreceniense . • . . 171 Cauloglossum datum . . . . 170 novo-zelandicum . . . . .Aus. 8 pistillaris . . 170 Chlamydopus clavatus . . 135 Coilomyces Schweinitzii . . . . . . 170, 181 Corynites Curtisii . 154 Cycloderma apiculatum . . . . . 181 depressum .... 181 indicum . ... 181 Ohiense . . . . 181, Gea. 35 platysporiim . .181, Aus. 42 pusillum . . ... 181 stipitatum . . . . . 181 Weddellii .... . . . . .181 Diplocystis guadalupensis . . . 193 Diploderma album . . 181, Aus. 42 fumosum ... . 181, Aus. 42 glauciim . . 181, Aus. 40 m* laspermum . . . 181, Aus. 42 pachythrix .... . 181, Aus. 40 sabulosnm. 181, x\us. 40 suberosum . . . . . 181, Aus. 42 tul)erosum . . . . . 181 Ungerii . . .... 181 Disciseda Candida . . 171 circumscissa . . . .122 com pacta . . . . 170 debreceniensis . . 122, 171 defossa . . 171 Hollosiana . . . . . . . 200 Eriosphaera Fenzlii . 16 Favillea argillacea . Aus. 13 degenerans . Aus. 13 Qeaster allinis . Aus. 23 australis ... Aus. 23 ])il)licatus . Aus. 18 calyculatus. • ... 72, 171 campestris . 70, Gea. 10 capensis 171 coiiformis . Gea. 7 columnatus ... ... 1.56 coriaceus . Aus. 23 coronatus (bi-^) . Aus. 23 Curtisii . 171 delicatus.143, Aus. 17, Gea. 11, 43 dubius ....... . Aus. 21 fenestratus . 70 granulosus . 172 Guilfoylei . Aus. 23 hungaricus .... Aus. 17 hygrometricus var giganteus. Kunzei • .... Gea. 17 lageniformis . 80, Gea. 38 lugubris . ... ... Aus. 23 marginatus . Gea. 27 melanoceplialus . 172 Alorganii. . . Aus. 10, Gea. 10, 80 nanus. ... 187 Ohiensis . . Gea. 35 orientalis . Gea. 17 pseudolimbatus . Gea. 43 pseudomammosus . Gea. 10 pseudostriatus. . . . 108, Gea. 4‘S quadrifidus . 77, Gea. 32 radicans . 155, Gea. 31 Reader!. . ... Aus 22 saccatus var, major . Ill Schweinfurthii Aus. 16. Gea. 12 Speggazzinianus ... . Aus. 23 stellaris . 171 stellatus . .172 striatus . Gea. 15, 17 striatus var. plicatus . Aus. 18 tenu,i])es. . 72, Aus. 18 Tiiwaitsii . Aus. 18 umbilicatus . ■ ..71, Aus. 16 velutinus var. caespitosus Gea. 36 Globaria Rovista . Aus. 36 debreceniensis . 122 gigantea . . Aus- 36 nigrescens . 117 samoense . . . 50 tomentosa . 118 Gyrophragmium Deli lei var. Texense . 154 Gyropodium coccineum . 126 Mippoperdon Crucibulum . 178 Pila . ... 180 piriforme . 180 Hippoperdon Sorokinii . igp turbinatum . lyg Hydnangium reticulatum 152 Stephensii var. Ravenelii. . .152 Hypoblema l)aeliyderma. . 140 Langermannia Candida . . • • • Aus. 37 gigantea ..... Lanopila Argentina . guaranitica . 190 stuppea . ... 190 tabacina . . . . . 117, 100 AVahlbergii . . . . . . 190 Lycoperdon asperum .... . 118 australe . • . . Aus. 30 axatum . .... Aus. 6 Bovista . . .117. Aus 36 Calostoina ... . 126 candid um .... caudatuni . . . . . 168 Golensoi .... coliforme ... . . Gea. 7 coloratum . . . . . . 167 constellatum. . . 168, 172 (Grium . ... . 120 Curlisii . . . 153 defossum .... . . 171 delicatum ... .... 153 excipuliforme . . . . . . . 168, 187 fragile. . . . • . Aus. 35 Frostii . . 153 furfuraceum . 167, Aus. 20, 31 giganteum • . . . .Aus. 36 glabescens . . . . . Aus. 28 globosum .... . 117 golungense. • • .... 182 Gunnii ■ . . . Alls. 20 heterogeneum . G . 126 hiemale . . • . .166, Aus. 31 liorrendum . . . . 101 lepidophorum . . . . . 140 lilacinum . . . ■ Aus. 35 marginatum . . . . 83, 112, 168 maximum.. . . . . Aus. 36 microsperm um Aus. 30 mundulum . . . . . . . Aus. 34 natalense ... . Aus. 31 nigrescens . . ■ . 117 Novae-Zealandiae . . . . Aus. 35 paludosum. . . . . . 88 papillatum . . . 167 pedicellatum .168 perlatum .... . . 167, Aus. 33 piriforme var. excipuliforme.. 168 pistillaris . reticulatum. . . . . Aus. 34 saccatum .... . . 166, 187 separans . . . . 83, 153 Sinclairii . . . . . . Aus. 37 17 Lycoperpon stellatiim • • 172 substellatum. . A us. 34 Tasmanicum . Aus. 33 tephrospermiim . 182 tomentosum. . . 118, 182 transversal ium .... 138 violascens . Aus. 34 Warnei . 139 AVrightii var separaus . . 153 Mesophellia Scleroderma . . Aus. 37 Mitremyces australis . Aus. 41 (toccineus . • ... Aus. 41 heterogeneus ...... 126 Indicus . Aus. 5 Kavenelii var. minor . 127 viridis . . • Aus. 41 Montagnites Duualii . 195 Mutinis bovinus . .... 154 Mycenastrum Corium form Sterlingii. . . . 120 phaeotrichum . Aus. 26 olivaceum. ... • . Aus. 26 Oregonense ... ... 116 spinulosum . 79, 119 Nidularia striatus . 100, 199 Onygena Lycoperdoides . . 170 Podaxis axata . ... Aus. 6 senegalensis . ... Aus. 6 Podaxon axatus . Aus. 6 calyptratus. . . Aus. 6 carcinomabs var. elatior . Aus. 6 Indica . Aus. 5 strobilaceus . 197 Polyplocium Californicum.. . 69, 197 inquinans ... . . 69, 197 Polysaccum album . Aus. 12 australe . Aus. 12, 13 degenerans . Aus. 13 marmoratum . Aus. 13 microcarp nm . Aus. 12 pusillum .... . . Aus. 13 turgidum . . . . Aus. 13 umbrinum . Aus. 13 Potoromyces loculatus . Aus. 40 Rhapalogaster transversarium . 138 Sclerangium Michelii . 182 Scleroderma australe . Aus. 14 aureum . . . x4us. 14 Bovista. ... 77, Aus. 13 Calostoma . 126 lycoperdoides . 77 olivaceum . Aus. 26 Oregonense . 117 pandanaceum . Aus. 14 phaeotrichum . Aus. 26 pteridis . 149 py rami datum . 182 strobilinum . Aus. 10 umbrinum . Aus. 13 vuigare . Aus. 13 vulgare var. verrucosum . . .79 Secotium agaricoides . 139, 200 Arizonicum . 149 decipiens .. -62, 69, 150, 197 Gunnii . . . Aus. 8 lilacense .... ... Aus. 8 Eodwayi . . .... Aus. 8 rubigenum . 139. 199 Texense . 197, 152, 154 Thunii . 172 transversarium . 154 virescens . Aus. 8 Warnei . 139 Sphaericeps lignipes ..... .... 182 Stella Americana . 182 Tylostoma album ... fimbria turn . . Kilrnbackii . . laceratum . . leprosum . . . maximum . . Meyenianum pulchellum.. Schweinfurthii Xylopodium australe . . . . Delestrei. • • . ochroleucLim . . Aus. 9 . Aus. 9 . . 193 .193 . Aus. 9 . Aus. 9 134, 154 . Aus. 9 . . 193 Aus. 11 Aus. 10 Aus. 10 Requiescat in pace. 18 In my opinion, the prevailing custom of attaching the names of writers to the names of plants serves no purpose unless it be to gratify the vanity of authors. It results in a great deal of very bad work, and innumerable synonyms. It is however, the prevailing custom and I am well aware that it will not be discontinued or even modified because of the fact that I, personally, neither believe it proper nor to the interest of science. A number of my correspondents are willing to accept my determination of Gastrom3^cetes who desire to use or publish the same, but who feel that the names I give are not complete inasmuch as I do not attach to each binomial a personal name. For the benefit of these parties I herewith append such a list of the principal species that have been considered in Mycological Notes. In making the list I record the name of the person who proposed the specific name and who I feel in most instances is entitled to all the advertisement f To place his name in parenthesis as though he were a secondary factor and then add the name of the individual who merely puts the species under the generic name is carrying the advertising feature much too far. To substitute for the first author the name of the second is little less than fraud. We strongly approve Prof. Ellis’ remarks on the subject, to wit; “The piratical practice of omiting the first name and substituting the second in its place cannot be too strongly condemned’’ Those plants that are so closely related to others that the^^ are perhaps best called sub-species, varieties or even forms, are indicated by a star (*). (See article on page 7 of this index. ) ' Arachnion albiiiii, Schweinitz. Arachnion Driimmoivhi, Berkeley. Battarrea phalloides, Dickson. Battarrea Stevenii,'^ Liboschitz. Battarreopsis artini, Hennings. Bovista brunnea,* Berkeley. Bovista minor,* iMorgan. Bovista nigrescens, Persoon. Bovista pila, Berkeley. Bovista plumhea, Persoon. Bovista tomentosa, Yittadini. Bovistella ainmophila, Leveille. Bovistella aspera, Leveille. Bovistella australiana, Lloyd. Bovistella dealbata, Lloyd. Bovistella glabesceii'^, Berkeley. Bovistella Gunnii, Berkeley. Broomeia congregata, Berkeley. Calvatia caeLta, Bulliard. Calvatia Candida, Ilostkovius. Calvatia Fontanesii,* Montague. Calvatia gigantea, Batsch. Cnlvatia Idacina, Berkeley. Calvatia olivacea, Cooke. Calvatia sciilpta, Harkness. Castoreinn radicatiim, Cooko. Catastorna anomalum, Cooke, ('atastoina circumscissura, Berkele3^ Catastorna hyalothrix, Cooke. Catastorna bypogaeum, Cooke. Catastorna iNiuplleri, Berkeley. Catastorna pedicellatum, Morgan. Catastorna subterraneum. Peck. Canloglossum transversarium. Bose. Chlamydopus Meyenianns, Klotzscb. Clavo^aster novo-zelandicus, Hen- niniis. Dictyocephalos curvatus, White. Diploc} stis Wrightii, Berkeley. Gallacea Scleroderma, Cooke. Geaster Archeri, Berkeley. Geaster arenarius, Lloyd. f When the article bears the name of two authors (not an unusual custom with those who wish to secure double advertisement , we append the name only of the author who, as we under- tand it, wrote the article. When one writes an article and another puts his name to it as we uspect in a number of instances, we can only be guided by the record 19 Geaster asper, Michelins.J Geaster Berkeley!, INIassee. Geaster Bryaiitii, Berkeley. Geaster coronatus, Schaeffer. Geaster Drummondii, Berkeley. Geaster lloriformis, Vitta'lini. Geaster fimbriatus, Fries. Geaster fornicatiis, Hudson. Geaster giganteus,* Lloyd. Geaster hygrometricus, Persoon. Geaster limbatus, Fries. Geaster mammosiis, Clievallier. Geaster minimus, Schweinitz. Geaster mirabilis, Montague. Geaster pectinatus, Persoon. Geaster plicatus, Berkeley. Geaster rufescens, Fries. || Geaster saccatus, Fries. Geaster Schmidelii, Vittadini. Geaster simulans, Lloyd. Geaster Smitliii, Lloyd. Geaster striatulus, Kalcbbrenner. Geaster triplex, Junghuhn. Geaster velutiniis, iMorgan. Geaster Welwitschii, Montague. Gymnoglossum stipitatnm, Massee. Gyrophragmium deci})iens,* Peck. Gyi’ophragmium Delilei, Montague. Gyrophragmium inquinans.* Berkeley Gyrophragmium Texense,*Berkeley. Hypoblema lepidophorum, Ellis. Lanopila bicolor, Leveille. Lasiosphaera Fenzlii, Ileichardt. Lycop^'i'don cei)aeforme,* Bulliard. Lycoperdon coprophilum, Cooke. Lycoperdon criiciatum, Kostkovius. Lycoperdon dermoxanthum,* Vitta¬ dini. Lycoperdon gemmatiim, Batsch. Lycoi)erdon nigrum,* Lloyd. Lycoperdon polymo'phum, Vittadini. Lyco})erdon pratense, Persoon. Lycoperdon pseudoradicans, Lloyd. Lycoperdon pusillum,* Batsch. Lycoperdon piriforme, Schaeffer. Lycoperdon stellatum, Cooke. Lycoperdon tephrum, Massee. Mesophellia arenaria, Berkeley. Mesophellia ingratissima, Berkeley. M*-sophellia pachythrix, Cooke. Mesophellia sabulosa, Cooke. Mitremyces cinnabarinus, Desvaux.^ iMitremyces fuscus, Berkeley. Mitremyces lurid us,* Berkeley. Mitremyces lutescens, Schweinitz. Mitremyces Bavenelii, Berkeley. Mitremyces Tylerii, Lloyd. Mycenastrum Corium, Guersent. Myriostoma coliformis, Dickson. Paurocotylis pila, Berkeley. Phellorina australi-^, Berk<-ley. Phellorina Delestrei, iMontayne. Phellorina strobilina, Kalchbrenner. Podaxon aegyptiacus, Montague. Podaxon IMnelleri, Hennings. Polysaccum Boudieri,* Lloyd. Polysaccum confusum,* Cooke. Polysaccum crassipes,* De Candolle. Polysaccum pisocarpium, Fries. Polysaccum tuberosum,* Fries. Protoglossum lutenm, Massee. Queletia mirabilis. Fries. Schizostoma laceratum, Fihrenberg. Scleroderma aurantium, Persoon. Scleroderma Cepa, Persoon. Scleroderma flavidum, Ellis. Scler- derma Geaster, Flies. Scleroderma tenerum,* Berkeley. Scleroderma Texense, Berkeley. Scleroderma verrucosum, Bulliard. Secotium acuminatum, Montague. Secotium coarctatum, Berkeley. Secotium erythroce})halum, Tulasne. Secotium macrosporum, Lloyd. Secotium melanosporum, Berkeley. Secotium nubigenum, Harkness. Trichaster melanocephalus, Czer- niaiev. I He did not give it this name, but it was the first of the specific adjectives he applied to it. The name is .sired by necessity and dammed by antiquity. It has also been recently damned by Hennings. II The name was proposed by Persoon, but for tkix plant by Fries. \ Poor old Persoon is cheated out of his advertisement on this plant. 20 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV O. G. L-L-OVD. ClflCIfUSlATI, O. flovembet^, 1898. 1— INTRODUCTION. The generous appreciation that has been bestowed on my recent pamphlet the “Volvae” by mycological workers in all parts of the country, evidences the growing interest in this branch of botany, and encourages me to further efforts in this line. We have three practical methods of making record of fleshy agarics, and we will enumerate them in the order of value that we attach to them. 1st, Photographs ; 2nd, Alco¬ holic Specimens ; 3rd, Dried Specimens. Each is of value in preserving a record of an agaric, but neither is sufficient in itself (nor all together for that matter.) Agarics should be studied fresh. If you are acquainted with an agaric, have studied it as it grows and know it, you will probably recog¬ nize either a dried specimen, an alcoholic specimen, or a good photograph of it, but in my opinion, for the purpose of study ^ pictures or preserved specimens are at the best only aids. Abont two years ago I began to have photogravures made of a few of my negatives of fungi and distributed them to a limited number of correspondents who have aided in the collection of a mycological museum. The expense attend¬ ing this process of reproduction is considerable, the edition necessarily limited, and the issues few. Many persons have applied for sets and are willing to pay for them, but I now find it impracticable to make any additions to the list of re¬ cipients and I have been forced to deny not only these appli¬ cants, but besides a number who wish more frequent issues of these plates. By means of the present pamphlet I shall record de¬ scriptions drawn from growing plants, and those who desire can obtain photographs from me at the actual cost of print¬ ing. These photographs will be sent unmounted with the descriptions pasted on the back, and so indicated by let- 1 ‘ ters that they can readily be kept in the order ol classifi¬ cation. I am in hopes sufficient interest will be awakened so that I will feel justified in gradually issuing these photo¬ graphs and descriptions, until the field is fairly well covered. Recognizing the growing interest in “edible fungi” I shall give preference in illustrating to those of economic value. Since I have been working with the fungi it has been my custom to photograph those I have found and the result is that I have now over 450 6^x8^ plates of our native fungi. I have received many compliments regarding my photographs that I feel, should, with greater justice, have been given to the lens. Photography I consider to be largely mechanical, and anyone with a good lens and suitable apparatus ought with practice to succeed. In photographing fungi, it is ne¬ cessary to have a “long focus” lens capable of covering, nat¬ ural size ot the object, a 6|x8J plate and with perfect achro¬ matic properties and what is known as “depth of focus”. Such a lens with camera will cost about $150.00. Every mycological club, and all students who can afford it should be equipped with this outfit, and I will be pleased to give further information in detail to those requesting it. 2— HYDNUM TINOTORIUM. A Hydnum Analagous to Fomes. Description. — Pileus dimidiate, sessile, hard, woody. Upper surface dark, almost black, concentrically zoned, (each zone I think, represents an annual growth) the outer (more recent) zone is brown. Interior substance bright dark red color, hard. Teeth numerous, about a cm. long, 2 mm. thick, acute, firm, light brown color, the interior dark red, under the mi¬ croscope covered with spines as in Prof. Ellis’ genus, Mu- cronoporus. Spores hyaline, broadly elliptical, 4x6 me. Specimen received was 18 cm. long, 9 cm. wide, and 7 cm. deep. It is evidently of several years’ growth. Traces of the teeth structure can be observed for 3 cm. into the sub¬ stance of the pileus and it is evident that as the teeth grow each year, the substance of the pileus fills in between them at the base. This specimen was sent by C. V. Piper, and collected on Abies grandis at Jansville, Idaho. Prof. Piper informs me that in that locality the hydnum was quite common on diseased Abies grandis trunks and that some ot the specimens were much larger than the one sent me. It is of exceeding interest being the first woody hydnum described, to my knowledge. It might well be taken as the type of a new genus for which Prof. Ellis suggests the name Echinodontium, if this view be accepted, making the name Echinodontium tincto- rium, E. & E. Prof. Ellis advises me that the plant is evidently the same as one he received from the Alaska collection of J. G. Swan, but in that specimen the teeth were all broken off at the base and their hollow remains were mistaken for pores. The plant was described (Bull. Torr. Club, Vol. 22, p. 362,) as Fomes tinctorius, E. & E. The rich red color of the sub¬ stance of the pileus is very peculiar, and Prof. Ellis states is used in Alaska for dyeing. I acknowledge my grateful in¬ debtedness to C. V. Piper for this interesting specimen and to Prol. J: B. Ellis for aid in its classification. 3— THE ABNORMAL GENUS MYRIADOPORUS. In 1884 Prof. Peck described (in Bull. Torr. Club, Vol. 11, p. 26,) a new genus Myriadoporus, which he- stated at the time, appeared to him as an abnormal form of Polyporus. We found a specimen belonging to this genus this year and distributed portions to various mycologists. From a very interesting letter received from Prof. Patouillard regarding this specimen, I am enabled to present the following points regarding the genus. Myriadoporus as described has the “Hymenium cellular-porous ; pores of the surface shallow, open, the others imbedded in the hymenium. The pores do not as in Polyporus form vertical parallel tubes, but rather cells or short tubes variously directed, so that a vertical sec¬ tion of the hymenium as well as a horizontal one is porous.” Prof. Peck originally described two species, but numerous others have since been observed and it is found that they are always sterile and are abnormal forms of various Polyporii. 3 Prof. Patouillard has observed the form corresponding to Poria subacida, Polyporus adustus, Fomes connatus, Poly- stictus sanguineus, and Fomes marmoratus. The specimen we found was evidently derived from Polyporus delectans, and we have seen at Trexlertown, Pa., the form correspond¬ ing to Poria salmonicolor (?). The genus Bresadolia estab¬ lished by Spegazzini on a South American species, evidently belongs to the same forms. The specimen we found grew in close proximity to Polyporus delectans, and is without doubt a curious variation of this species, for no other soft, large pored, white species of Polyporus occurs in this section. Our photograph gives an excellent idea of this curious plant. 4— THE LARGE LEPIOTAS. As the genus Lepiota is one of the easiest we have for the beginner to work with we will begin our description and photograph distributions, with this genus. We will select first the large species (7-10 cm, or larger) which we find around Cincinnati, reserving the small species for a future paper. Two species we have met, are omitted as we are not as yet sure about their determination. Two of the species can be known by their dry rough pilei, resembling undressed leather, viz : Morgani and procera ; two by the flesh turning red when bruised, Ameri¬ cana and meleagris ; cepaestipes, a white species, by the abundant flocculent particles which cover the pileus ; nau- cinus, the other white species, by its smooth firm pileus devoid of scales and meal ; acutesquamosa by the erect blackish scales ; rubrotincta by its dark red, thin cuticle, often cracked or peeling ofT, but not broken into squamose scales. _ 5— LEPIOTA MORGANI. Pileus globose when young, then explanate, white, covered with large, shaggy, darker scales. Gills, remote from the stem cm), narrowing in front, broader behind, when mature pale greenish color. Ring large, firm, distant from the gills, sometimes fixed, sometimes movable. Stem cylindrical, firm, stuffed then hollow, slightly thickened below, surface smooth. Spores, greenish in mass, 7x12 me. apicu- late. 4 This is much the largest species we have ; stipe 30 to 40 cm. high, 2 cm. thick, pileus 20 to 30 cm. broad. It usually grows in wet pastures. It does not occur in the east, but is quite frequent with us and ranges southward, being reported from Georgia, Berry Benson ; and Louisiana, Father Langlois. It is readily distinguished from all other known agarics by the greenish color of its gills. It was named for its discoverer. Prof. A. P. Morgan one of the leading mycologists of our country. Regarding the edible properties of this species reports are conflicting. I have eaten it without any bad result, and Berry Benson used to write me it was a regular article of diet with him. Prof. Peck advises me however, that some of his correspondents report indisposition from eating it. I do not think it has any poisonous properties, but probably does not agree with some stnmachs like many articles of food. Our photograph is necessarily taken from small specimens not more than one-third the usual size. 6— LEPIOTA PROCERA. Pileus ovate, then carnpanulate or expanded, with a small prominent unbo, covered with brownish dry cuticle which breaks up (save the umbo) into adnate, torn scales. Flesh soft, white. Gills white, remote from the stipe. Ring- firm, remote, usually entire and movable. Stem tall, firm, thickened at the base, hollow, the cuticle cracking, forming appressed fuscous scales. Spores white, 10x14 me. broadly ovate, not apiculate. This is a large species, but smaller than the preceding. Stipe about 20 cm. high ; pileus 10-15 cm. broad. It is rather rare around Cincinnati, be¬ ing generally found in the fall of the year in woodland pastures. It is however of wide distribution in this country, being reported from many localities. Regarding its esculent properties, all authorities agree that it is most excellent. It makes a beautiful photograph, and our picture will give a better idea of the plant than any possible word description, and I might add, than any colored plate I have ever seen. 7— LEPIOTA PROCERA, FORM RUBESCENS'. Description agrees with procera in every respect save that the gills become slowly red spotted when bruised. I have no doubt this is the plant on which L. rachodes is based in Prof. Morgan’s flora, but I would consider it hardly a good variety of procera. The plant of Europe usually referred to L. rachodes diflers from procera, especially in its smooth stem, besides it belongs to the section quickly turning red when bruised, analagous to L. Americana (if not that species). 8— LEPIOTA AMERICANA. Quickly turning red when bruised or cut. Pileus con¬ vex, then expanded, flat or sometimes umbonate, margin in large specimens usually strongly striate, white, but covered with a red cuticle which breaks up (save on the disk) into large, somewhat adnate, scales. Gills free, broad, white. Ring entire or sometimes torn. Stem smooth, hollow, or 5 stuffed, sometimes thickened below, (sometimes not, see photograph), frequently enlarged below into a bulb-like swell¬ ing, like “ cepsestipes.” Spores white, subelliptical, 5x7 me. The fresh plant turns red when bruised or cut; it also dries red, and turns alcohol red into which it is placed. It is of wide distribution from Louisiana, (Father Langlois) north and east It is a common plant in the late summer at Cincinnati. Sometimes we find it in the grass, then it is frequently large. Usually it grows at base of stumps and rarely on decaying wood. I am strongly of the opinion that it is the same plant known as rachodes in Europe, though no one would suspect it from Cooke’s plate. Some figures such as Price and Barla closely approximate it. I presume the early records of “rachodes” from this country are based on this plant. I have sent dried specimens to two of the lead¬ ing mycologists of Europe. One states “It is unlike any species we have in Europe, and I consider a good species.” The other, “It is identical with Lepi- ota Badhami, Berk, and to Lepiota rachodes of most authors, but scarcely as described by Vittadina, which according to his description has not yet been re-discovered.” Regarding the edible properties of the plant, there is no question of its wholesomeness, but its change of color makes an uninviting dish. 9— LEPIOTA MELEAGRIS. Pileus explanate, obtuse, white, but covered with small brown scales. Flesh white, turning red spotted when cut or bruised, afterwards turning brown. Gills white, remote. Ring fragile, soon withering. Stem usually swollen below, stuffed, generally brown spotted. Spores, 4x7 me. This plant approximates the preceding in its properties of turning red when bruised, turning alcohol red, and drying reddish. It is however, a much smaller plant and occurs in rich leaf mold in the w^oods, where we rarely find Americana. It grows singly or three or four caespitose. The whole plant (especially when handled) is covered with brown spots which make it appear dirty and untidy. Below the ring, the stipe is covered with loose white fibrils (more perhaps in the nature of pruinosity) which turn red quicker when bruised than any other part of the plant. The stipes are usually much swollen but some times very slightly as shown in Cooke’s figure and in our photograph. Our plant differs somewhat from the English description. The stem is not “ tinged with yellow.” The flesh does not change to a “ beautiful red” when cut but merely red spotted. Cooke’s figure show^s pileus and Uipe covered with black scales; our stipe is destitute of scales and those of the pileus are brown. I do not believe that Stevenson’s description or Cooke’s figure applies to Sowerby’s original figure which show's much few'er and larger scales than our plant and the stipe is solid. I do not find any record that the plant is edible, though I do not question it, as all similar species are. 10— LEPIOTA CEP^STIPES. Pileus campanulate, or convex, even, save the margin which is usually striate or sulcate (sometimes however, not), pure white, or very slightly brownish only at the disk, cover¬ ed with large, loose, floccose, white scales, easily rubbed off. Gills free, pure white, rather broad. Flesh thin, white. Stipe thickened at the base, tapering up, and slightly en¬ larged at the insertion in the pileus, white farinose but with 6 a slight yellowish tint when the mealiness is rubbed off. Ring large, lacerate, soft, usually torn. Spores elliptical, 6x8 me. The specimen photographed, and from which the above description was drawn, was referred when collected to Prof. Peck’s “ farinosa.” Having received from Prof. Burt an alcoholic specimen of the same plant labelled “ cepsestipes syn. farinosa” on further study of the European plant and descriptions we coin¬ cide in Prof. Burt’s views. Judging from the foreign plates and from alcoholic specimens received from the South (Father Langlois) the plant photographed diff¬ ers from the usual form in being much larger and not having a typical “cepseform” stem. In Europe and in the South (Benson) a yellow form also occurs. Some of my alcoholic specimens have abruptly bulbous stems but that this is not always a character, see Greville’s figure. The character of the plant seems to me to be the dense mealiness covering all portions especially when young, well shown in our photograph (but not in the principal foreign plates, Barla, Cooke, Greville, Sowerby, though covered in their text) and Prof. Peck’s name, farinosa, would be more appropriate than the name it bears. VVe distribute photographs of two forms, one the large form (L, farinosa Pk.), the other the smaller form agreeing more closely with the European plant save the stipe is not so ‘‘ cepseform.” All authorities concur in its being edible. 11— LEPIOTA NAUCINUS. Pileus white, convex then expanded, obtuse, smooth. Flesh soft, white. Gills free, narrower in front, white, discol¬ ored when old. Stipe firm, white, smooth, stuffed, then hol¬ low. Ring entire, white. Spores 6x7 me. This white species can readily be distinguished from the preceding by the absence of the mealiness. We generally find it pure white and smooth. Some¬ times however there are a few minute darker scales on the pileus. Prof. Peck considers our American plant distinct from the European under the name nau- cinoides. ' From an economic standpoint we consider this the most important mush¬ room we have, except the field agaric, Psalliota arvensis. We prefer its flavor and it often occurs in the greatest abundance. The plants are not so much in¬ fested by larvae as the field agaric. It usually grows in pastures in ‘rich moist situations where the grass is green. Sometimes in the fall in the rich bottom land around Cincinnati the fields are full of it. There is only one danger in col¬ lecting it. An inexperienced collector may mistake Amanita phalloides for it, as they resemble in general appearance. Unless you are sure of it do not gather a ‘"white mushroom” in the woods, or in newly cleared ground, or woodland pastures. _ 12— LEPIOTA ACUTESQUAMOSA. Pileus convex or expanded, obtuse or subumbonate, cov¬ ered with brownish fibrils which coalesce and form erecl black¬ ish scales, thickly covering the pileus especially the disk. Gills white, narrow, close, free, crowded. Ring thin, large, white, often cobwebby^ frequently torn. Stem equal or thick¬ ened below, stuffed or hollow. Spore, long, 3x7 me. There are many species with spreading scales but this is the only large one we have with erect scales ; (felina has similar scales but it is a small plant). Fries recognizes two related species Friesii and acatet-quamosa the former with ap- pressed scales and branched gills, the latter with erect scales and simple gills, 7 Our plants all have erect scales; sometimes the gills are simple, sometimes a few only branched, and sometimes most of the gills are branched. We would con¬ sider them all, acutesquamosa but would modify Fries’ gill characters. It seems to me the descriptions of this plant do not emphasize enough the peculiar cob¬ webby veil in which it differs from all other large species. Usually it is woven into a thin membrane as shown in our photograph, hut we have a photograph (425) where the veil consists of distinct fragile threads, like a spider’s \yeb. We only find the plant in the woods, and generally growing in soil thickly mixed with .decaying wood as where a log has rotted away. Our photograph distributed (one of the first we made. No. 37) is not as good as we would like and we will probably substitute later a better one. _ 13— T.EPIOTA RUBROTINCTA. Pileus explanate, thin, obtuse, entirely covered with a reddish thin cuticle, which often cracks or peels away but does not break up into scales. Gills close, free, white. Flesh white. Stipe slender, equal or slightly thickened below, white, smooth, hollow. Ring usually entire, white, or the mar¬ gin often similarly colored like the pileus. Spores, 5x7 me. This is a beautiful species found in the woods. Prof. Peck compares it to cristata but if I have correctly identified his species it seems to me to have little in common excepting the color of the pileus cuticle. The thin cuticle often cracks or peels away in a radiating manner, but does not form similar spreading scales, to cristata. Often we find specimens of this species with the cuticle un¬ broken, never in cristata save on the very disk. In our photograph the three erect plants have the usual character of the cuticle, very rarely we find it as seen in the specimen where the full top of pileus is shown. I consider Lepiota carneo-annulata, Clements the same plant. Often we find specimens with the ring beautifully incarnate margined. The species is no doubt edible but not abundant enough to be of any importance. 14— PHOTOGRAPHS. In order to encourage a more general study of our native agarics, I will supply photographs of the plants de¬ scribed in these pamphlets at cost of printing, viz,. 10 cents each, and will send a set of twelve photographs representing the plants here described, on receipt of $1.20. With the aid of these photographs and descriptions, any one should recognize the specimens when found growing. Having dis¬ claimed any personal credit for the excellence of my photo¬ graphs and given it where due to the lens, it will not be amiss to say that notwithstanding the lack of color I con¬ sider them the best illustrations of fungi I have ever seen and would not exchange them lor any colored plates ever issued. Artists are often inaccurate but a good lens makes no mistakes. A delay of a week or ten days will elapse after receipt of order before the set can be mailed, as it requires this much time to have the set printed. 0. G. LLOYD, Court and Plum Sts., CINOIJSNATI, 0. 8 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES BY O. G. L.L.OYD. OlHOlHHRTl, O. FEB^tlARV, 1899. 15— THE SMALL VOLV ARIAS. Since the appearance of the “Volvae” we have received alcoholic specimens through the kindness of E. Bartholomew of the plant from which the description of V. striatula was drawn. It is entirely different from the little plant we have around Cincinnati, and which we had thought was the one covered by the description. We therefore have four at least (not three as stated in the Volvae) small species of Volvaria growing in the ground, which from our present knowledge of them we would class as follows: 16— VOLVARIA PUBESCENTIPES, A small plant about 2^-4 cm. high, distinguished by the spreading hairs on the stipe. (Vide ‘‘Volvae” p. 11 and 17.) Evidently very close to V. plumulosa now considered in Europe a hairy form of parvula, (vide Pat. Tab. No. 333.) 17— VOLVARIA STRIATULA. About the same size as the preceding and resembling most European plates of parvula in shape and size, but distinguished from the plates in being striate, (vide “Volvae” p. 11 and 16.) 18— VOLVARIA PUSILLA. Pileus explanate, white, fibrillose, dry, striate, center slightly depressed when mature. Gills white, becoming^flesh color, free, distant. Stipe white, glabrous. Volva split to the base into four, nearly equal, segments. Spores broadly ellip¬ tical (almost globose,) 5-6 me. This is our very smallest species not more than one-third the size of our other “small” species and rarely over a cm. high. It grows on the ground usual¬ ly among weeds, and requires close hunting to find it. We have met it several seasons. The volva almost equally four parted to the base resemblesthe petals of a cruciferous flower. VVe adopt Persoon’s name believing it is his species, and well named, and we think Fries is in error in refering Persoon’s plant to parvula. Cooke’s plate of V. temperata and Cordier’s plate of V. parvula we take for the same thing, and having no good photograph of the plant from nature we--repro- duced Cordler’s drawing which is an exact picture, size, shape, volva and all par¬ ticulars of the plant as we find it. 9 19— VOLVARIA UMBONATA. Pileus white, campanulate, at length plane, when moist slightly viscid, but silky and not viscid when dry, strongly striate to the umbo, furnished with a decided prominent umbo. Gills free, remote from the stipe. Stipe solid, smooth, white, slightly thickened below, (flesh white.) Volva white, irregul¬ arly split into segments. Spores varying in size, 5-7 me. broadly elliptical or globose. The plant usually grows in lawns. We have met it two seasons. Stipe 5 6 cm. high, 4 mm. thick. Pileus 3 cm. broad. It is about the same size as parvula and we were inclined to refer it to that species, especially as Frips underscores umbonate as a character. But it seems clearly distinct in its solid stem. Prof. Peck to whom we sent photograph, notes and dried specimens, considers it unde¬ scribed and we adopt the name he suggests for it. 20— A STANDARD OF COLORS. There has recently been issued a little book that will find frequent use by every student in natural history, namely, the Prang’s Standard of Colors, published by Louis Prang, Boston, Mass. We advise every one who is engaged in the study of the lungi to send 50 cts., to the publishers for this work. It contains plates showing 1176 distinct shades of color, arranged in a scientific series by a color expert, and on scien¬ tific principles. It is almost impossible to find a color in na¬ ture that cannot be very closely matched in the work. We admit that there is no other one single subject that has caused us so much trouble in the study of mycology as the determination of colors. Not that we are color blind, but that we do not know the colors. In fact, there is no sub¬ ject on which we feel there is so much general lack of knowledge as that of colors. If you do not believe it, take an agaric to three or four people, ask them what color it is, and you will find that hardly two of them will give it the same name. The general terms such as red, brown, etc., used in describing agarics do not convey any distinct idea. We can now cite colors with the knowledge that we can convey the same to anyone else who is studying the subject by citing them according to the system in this Standard of Colors. It would seem to us that Prang could have adopted a better system of nomenclature, giving a distinct name to each shade of color illustrated, which name would convey an impression of the color better than the present citation. For instance “20Y03” is simply a formula conveying an accurate 10 knowledge in relation with the Standard, but conveying no idea whatever in the absence of the same. In future, colors will be cited by us in keeping with the system adopted in Prang’s Standard. _ _ 21— SHORT NOTES. Dr. Geo. E. Francis, of Massachusetts, reports the find¬ ing of the rare Amanita russuloides abundantly in September, 1897, also adnata, a species which heretofore had not been very satisfactorily reported. Sarah B. Fay, Conn., also described a species she has met which we take to be adnata. She also records strangu- lata abundant in July, 1897. Prof. Dearness records Volvaria gloiocephala from Can¬ ada. I am obliged to Prof. Dearness for correcting an error in the pamphlet, viz. Volvaria Loveiana was found on Clito- cybe nebularis, not monadelpha as stated. Capt. Mcllvaine has called my attention to another mis¬ take. Amanita “sperta” on page 3, should be Amanita spreta. C. F. Wheeler, sends photograph of Lepiota Morgan!, which he has found at several stations in Michigan, thus ex¬ tending the range of this species. Hollis Webster and Geo. B. Fessenden have sent speci¬ mens of what we take to be true Lepiota rachodes, Vitt. and Prof. Bresadola confirms the determination. We hope to receive fresh specimens of this next season, so that we can photograph and describe it in these “Notes.” The species has been much confused with others. Our edition (1000) of the “Volvae” have all been distri¬ buted. We regret being unable to supply the frequent re¬ quests for the pamphlet. _ 22— CALVATIA AUREA. Immature Plant. Peridium compressed globose, the upper surface even, underside prominently and irregularly wrinkled. Cortex light brown, thin, minutely tomentose, cracked into small areolae. Root white, cord-like, branched. Subgleba about as thick as the capillitium, white but quickly turning golden yellow when cut. Young capillitium white, turning yellow when bruised and in maturing. 11 In cutting an immature specimen the subgleba quickly turns yellow, the capillitium remaining white except when bruised by the knife. In drying it slowly turns yellow. Mature Plant. Peridium thin, breaking up and falling off. Capillitium dark olivaceous, subgleba much lighter, leather color. Spores globose, 4 me. smooth, short pedicellate. Threads long, branching, slightly thicker than the spores. This plant I first found in 1896 in a garden at Pleasant Ridge, O. Additional specimens were brought in August, 1898, by Henry J. Koch, which grew in a hot house at Walnut Hills, O., and which agreed in every particular with the speci¬ mens I had found. It differs much in shape from C. rubro- flava, Cragin, the only yelloiv species heretofore described and there is no suggestion ot “red’’ in our plant. Ly coper- don xanthospermum. Berk, described from India, we judge is not a Calvatia. _ 23— THE GENUS PLUTEUS. (Of Cincinnati.) We have collected ten species and varieties of Pluteus in the vicinity of Cincinnati, of which three are common, viz : cervinus, longistriatus, and admirabilis and the others rare, having been met only a lew times and most of them only once. In addition Berkeley determined chrysophaeus from this locality on dried specimens sent by Lea and Prof. Morgan deter¬ mined leoninus. As neither author mentions admirabilis the only and common species which we find here, we pre¬ sume all determinations were made on the same plants. Prof. Morgan also notes two species phlebophorus and creatophyl- lus which we have never met. The students of the genus will find the following characters assist in dis¬ tinguishing the species. Fries divides the genus into three divisions: 1st. Cuticle of the pileus fibrillose or sometime pubescent or tomentose. Here we would place cervinus (and its varieties,) granularis, longistriatus, tomen- tosulus, 2nd. Pileus pruinate with atoms-nanus and tortus (granularis notwith¬ standing its name does not belong in this section, if w^e have correctly determined it.) 3rd. Pileus smooth-umbonatus, and admirabilis. The following points also should be observed, our notes of course, refer only to the species we have met. Color. Most of the species are fnliginoas, cinereous or umber, varying to quite light shades, one admirabilis, is yellow. ^ 12 Striation. Prominent striations are characteristic of two species, longistria- tus and iiinbonatus; tortus, nanus and admirabilis are sometimes faintly striate; granuiaris, tomentosiilus and cervinus are not striate. Rugulose pilei; the character of the pileus being rugulose (well shown in our photographs of nanus and granuiaris,) is a feature rather rare among agarics in general. It is marked in granuiaris, nanus, tortus and admirabilis, though the absence of the feature is not of importance as it seems to depend largely on mois¬ ture and conditions of growth and frequently w'e find specimens even. Stipe; solid in all species save admirabilis which has hollow stipe; smooth or fibrillose in all species excepting, granuiaris with velvety stipe, and tomento- sulus somewhat pubescent; tortus has a conspicuously twisted stipe, (see photo¬ graph.) Habitat; admirabilis, granuiaris and longistriatus grow on logs; cervinus both on logs and in the ground, usually the latter; the remainder of the species grew in the ground. ‘ Peck gives the habitat of tomentosulus and nanus ‘'decay¬ ing wood ” The only specimens we ever met grew in the grourid. Spores ; the spores do not afford any good character to distinguish the species we have met, as in all they are globose or almost globose and about 5 me. in dia¬ meter. 24— PLUTEUS CERVINUS. Pileus fleshy, convex then expanded, obtuse, even, gla¬ brous, but appearing fibrillose, the cuticle at first continuous and sometimes slightly viscid. Gills free, white then flesh colored. Stipe stout, solid, fibrillose or smooth. Spores subglobose, 5-6 me. This is the most frequent species we have, not only at Cincinnati, but it seems to be common in most localities. Its usual color is cinereous or grayish or blackish brown. We have pure white specimens (var. alba, Pk.) in our collection from Prof. Bart, but the white form does not occur with us. Usually the speci¬ mens are more even and expanded than the photograph we distribute, which corresponds closely to the form called eximias in Europe. Slugs are fond of this species and it can be seen that a slug has eaten the cuticle of the specimen photographed. Fries’ description (usually followed) describes the cuticle as after- . w’ards broken into fibrils or scales, but that does not accord to our observations. The appearance of the cuticle is very deceptive. It seems to be fibrillose to the eye, but under a glass distinct fibers cannot be made out. In Europe the plant is stated to grow on logs and stumps. With us, while it so occurs, we most frequently find it in loose soil in the woods. 25— PLUTEUS CERVINUS, (SCALY FORM.) Notwithstanding the usual description of pileus, “after¬ wards broken into fibrils and scales” we have only met this condition once which we thought was so unusual as to merit a photograph. _ 26— PLUTEUS CERVINUS, VAR VISCOSUS. The normal character of the cuticle of the species is slightly viscid in wet weather, but the specimens we collected and photographed were exceedingly viscid. They also dif¬ fered from the normal form in their lighter color, flesh much thicker at the disk and thin at the margins, and cuticle not appearhig fibrillose. It is close to petasatus, but differs how- 13 ever, in its narrower gills and in having no striae, good variety if it is not a good species. It is a 27— PLUTEUS LONGISTRIATUS. Pileiis expanded, thin, blackish when young, brownish when expanded, deeply and conspicuously striate. Gills free, white then flesh colored. Stem equal, solid, glabrous, white. Spores globose, 5 me. The prominent features of this species are its very ikin flesh and the promi¬ nent striae. When young the plants are dark, (blackish) but become light brown when mature. Owing to the almost absence of flesh the cuticle of the pileus splits between the gills in expanding forming the striae, somewhat similar though not as marked as Coprinus plicatilis. The half grown plants are not at all striate. From Prof. Peck’s remarks the plant must be rare in New York. With us it is very common on logs and seems to have a special fondness for hickory. 28 — PLUTEUS ADMIRABJLIS. Pileus when plant is in its prime bright yellow becoming brownish when old, hygrophanous, glabrous, striatulate on the margin, frequently rugulose-reticulate. Gills free, remote, yellow then flesh colored. Stipe equal, slender, smooth, hollow, bright yellow. Spores subglobose, 5-6 me. This plant is frequent here and the only bright yellow agaric that I recall. It is close to chrysophgeus of Europe from which Prof. Peck distinguishes it by the rugulose-reticulate pileus, but as it occurs here the pileus is ordinarily very slightly riigulose, if at all. It appears to me however, clearly distinct from chry- sophteus in its bright yellow color, only brownish or cinnamon when past its prime, its smaller size, and the hygrophanous nature. The entire plant —pileus, gills and stipe— is yellow wdien in its prime. The stipe is very different from all others of the genus which I have met, in fact it is very close to a cartilaginous stipe and hence you would hardly look for the plant in the genus Pluteus. Although, a common plant here, it was several years before I arrived at its determination. The photograph is poor, but yellow plants are hard to photograph without a ray filter with which our camera is not equipped. 29— PLUTEUS GRANULARIS. Pileus convex, then expanded, somewhat umbonate, strongly rugulosely wrinkled, covered with a dense coat of plush in nodules giving it a granular appearance, brown, darker on the raised portions. Gills free, pinkish. Stem equal, solid, striate, covered at the top with a coat of plush similar to the pileus, lighter color above. Spores globose, 5 me. This is an elegant and characteristic species but rare here, found on rotten wood. It is strongly marked by its rugiilose pileus and peculiar velvety coat. The gills were colored when young (not white) and the specimens w’ere pure brown, (no tinge of yellow,) otherwise agrees in every respect to original descrip¬ tion save as to granules. The velvety coat was collected into nodules giving the plant a granular appearance, well shown in our photograph, but there were no granules. It is possible that we have not correctly identified Prof. Peck’s species. 14 30— PLUTEUS UMBONATUS. Pileus campanulate, with a prominent blunt umbo, red¬ dish umber, excepting the umbo which is pale almost white, smooth, strongly striate to the umbo. Umbo even, smooth. Flesh very thin excepting the thickened umbo. Gills broad, free, desh colored. Stipe white, solid, smooth, slightly taper¬ ing upward. Spores globose, 5 me. with granular contents when fresh. This description has been drawn from a single specimen found growing in the leaf mold. It does not seem to approximate any species we can find described. It is probable the plant was not fully developed and that the cuticle of pileus would split when expanded into long striations similar to longistriatus, to which it appears close, save in its prominent thickened umbo. 31— PLUTEUS TOMENTOSULUS. Pileus expanded, dry, even, white with a pinkish cast, minutely squamulose-tomentose. Gills free, flesh colored. Stem solid, equal, white, densely fibrillose. Spores subglo- bose, 5-6 me. nucleate. We have found but a single specimen growing in the soil in woods. Prof. Peck described it from “decaying wood.” Our plant agreed with description save it was not subiimbonate and we would describe the stem as densely fibrillose rather than pubescent. 32— PLUTEUS NANUS. Pileus expanded, brown with a dark sooty center when dry, rugulose when wet, even when dry, minutely densely - scurfy, slightly striatulate on the margin when wet, not when dry. Gills free, rose-color. Stipe white, slightly grayish at base, equal, solid, smooth. Spores globose, 5 me. We found it but once growing in wet soil by side of a ravine. Owing to its habitat (it is usually recorded on decaying wood,) and to the dissimilarity be¬ tween our photograph in size and Cooke’s figures there may be some question of our determination, ytill we feel our plant answers the published descriptions of the species, even as to its small size. The “shiny” appearance of our photograph is not natural, but due to the specimens photographed, having lain in w^ater and become water soaked. 33— PLUTEUS TORTUS. This specimen we have only seen once. It was collected several years ago, and the notes made at the time were scanty. As we referred it to “nanus” when collected we presume the pileus was pruinose. Our notes simply state “The brownish pileus has a darker umbo and it is conspicuously and prominently rugu¬ lose. Stem very smooth, shining, white, solid, twisted^' Our photograph does not show the rugulose pileus and we presume it dried and became even before it was photographed, but it does show in a characteristic manner, the peculiar twisted stipes. Whether this is an accidental feature of these specimens or peculiar to the species is only conjecture. If the latter, the name we propose (pro tern.) tortus, will not be inappropriate. 15 34— PHOTOGRAPHS. Set (No. 2) of ten photographs illustrating fourteen plants described in this issue will be sent on receipt of one dollar. Two photographs (Clitocybe monadelpha,) to be described in next pamphlet will be included in the set in order to make an even ten. The large number who have subscribed to the previous set is exceedingly gratifying to me. While there are no pecuniary returns in the sale of these sets, (they being distributed at exact cost to me,) I am greatly pleased at the interest taken in them as evidenced by the orders and the many very pleasant words received regarding them, some of which we take the liberty to reproduce. There was only one unpleasant feature in connection with the distribution. The orders received so far exceeded our expectations that owing to the poor light for photo¬ graphic printing in our city during the winter months, our printers ( Messrs. Eom- bach and Groene) have not been enabled to keep with the orders and much de¬ lay has been experienced in mailing the sets. At least one-third of the orders are as yet unfilled, but will be mailed in the order of receipt, as fast as we receive them from the printer. Most of those who received set No. 1, have expressed them¬ selves as much pleased with them. “The photographs of Lepiotas arrived in good condition. They are exceedingly tine and lam ver}^ glad to get them and thank yon for giving me the oppoitnnity to get them. These photographs are much better than any plates I have ever seen. They exhibit the characters of the species.” 1)k. E. A. DANIELS, IJoslon, Mass. “I had no idea the plates could show so clearly the characters of the various species. I trust j’ou will continue the series.” F. M. COMSTOCK, Cleveland, O. “Photographs received in splendid condition. They are very beautiful and interesting and I hope to enjoy them verj" much in the future.” E. HAHKIS, Cambridge, Mass. Your photographs were shown to the members of the Philadelphia Mycolog^cal Society at their la-^t meeting. The opinion expressed was that they supplied a desirable aud etiective means of study, next best to natural fungi in their fresh condition.” CAliOLINE A. iiUKCrlN, Secretary, Philadelphia, Pa. “The photographs rrceived. It is a pleasuie to commend vour excellent work.” D. il. ALLEN, Brooklyn, N. Y. “ The photographs reached me in safety and I think they are the finest 1 have’ ever seen, which is saying much as I have taken pictures of all kinds for fifteen years or more. They are much better than any colored plates could be,” QUINCY PON D, Auburndale, Mass. “I am much pleased with vour photographs. They are excellent.” E. W. D. HOLWAY, Decorah, Iowa. “I received yesterday the twelve photographs of fungi and I am much indebted to you for these, as they are by far the best ill ustrations on the sulijects 1 have ever seen and I hope that I may have copies of all that you publish.” WM. KNOX, Cleveland, O. “The photographs of fungi have been received in good order, and I must confess I am de¬ lighted with tliem. Your claim that they are superior to colored plates is fully sustained, as I consider it iinpossible to show the characteristic features better than iu the faithful copy’of the camera, which reproduces even tlie finest derails.” HUGO BlLGliAM, Philadelphia, Pa. “I am very much jileased with the photograi^hs and consider them not only tine pictures, but better than the usual colored plates.” MliS M. C. WILLIAMS, Canandaigua, N. Y. our ver^v excellent photographs have dulv come to hand. I find them very fine. I will want the whole series. It seems to me that by thus biinging your collection within reach of students, you will make a very valuable contribution to the study of fungi.” W. C. BATES, Boston, Mass. Set No. 2, (10 photographs) sent on receipt of one dollar. ■ Sets Nos. 1 and 2 (22 photographs) sent on receipt of $2.20. All orders subject to delay in printing. With the advent of brighter weather however, we look for much quicker service. 0. G. LLOYD, Court and Plum Sts., CINCINNATI, 0. 16 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV O. G. L-LOVD. Xo. 3. CINCINNATI, O. RPHIU, 1899. 35-SOME CHARACTERISTIC PLANTS. We believe in taking up a genus at a time and de¬ scribing all the species we have met and do not favor isola¬ ted descriptions of fungi. The following plants however are so frequent and marked that they will be noted by most collectors. The descriptions of the two volvarias complete all the species of this genus we have observed. 36— CLITOCYBE MONADELPHA. Pileus convex, obtusely umbonate, center depressed when old, sometimes yellowish honey color, but usually red- . dish brown, fibrillose, scaly. Flesh solid, pale flesh color. Gills short, decurrent, pale flesh color. Stem long, slender, solid, equal or tapering to the base, pale brownish or flesh color, darker below. It g:r()ws here in great abundance in the fall densely cae,^pi lose usually at the l)ase of stumps. I would place it in the Disciformes. It has a curious history. First, it was collected by Lea, who sent it to Berkeley, who named and described it as Lentinus ca^spitosus. Berkeley in the Journal of Linnsean Soc. (Vol. 10, p. 287,) apparently on the advice of Dr. Curtis who informed him, “it was certainly . an Agaric,” changed it to Pleurotus cfespitosus and finally Prof. Morgan named it Clitocybe monadelpha. It is described under all three of these names in Saccardo, and as Prof. Morgan was the first to correcfly classify it, we prefer to retain his name. It has a close resemblance to some forms of Armillaria mellea in size, shape, color and texture, but can be distinguished by its C{3espitose habits and absence of ring. Dr. Curtis says “when dry it has a kind of acid-sweetish odor not unlike that about a cider-press.” Rev. A. B. Langlois sends us abortive forms of the plant similar to those we find of Clitopilus abortivus. Prof. Peck has very recently illustrated the plant among his plates of edible species and states that the flavor is superior to that of Armillaria mellea. It is a rare plant in New York and East, but abundant enough in the West and South. 37— FLAMMULA RHODOXANTHUS. Pileus obconic, or when old somewhat infundibuliform and depressed in the center, buff brown, minutely tomentose and soft to the touch, the cuticle usually finely cracked. Gills bright golden yellow, arctuate, long decurrent, faintly ven- osely connected. Flesh white, becoming yellowish when old. Stem solid, equal, punctate with small reddish brown scales. Spores light yellow^ oblong, 5x12 me., resembling somewhat in shape those of Boletus. 17 The plant was originally described by Schweinitz as Agarious rhodoxanthus (Syn. Car. No. 640.) and in Syn. Am. Bor, (No. 256.) he included it in the genus Gomphus (Gomphidius of recent nomenclature.) Fries (Epic. 1st ed., p. 326.) referred it to Hygrophorus leporinus, no doubt on the strengtli of dried specimens received from Schweinitz. It has little resemblance to Cooke’s figure of this species, but the figure of H. hypothejus, were the gills more yellow and the stem punctate with minute brown scales, could be taken for it. However, it is no Hygro¬ phorus, the gills are not at all -waxy. Berkeley describes it from dried specimens sent by Lea, as Paxillus flavidus. There are some discrepancies in his description, but it is without doubt the plant he had in view. It is not “viscid,” nor are the gills “forked at the base.” Moreover it is not a Paxillus, for the gills are not readily separable from the pileus. Nor is it a Gomphidius, for it has no universal glutinous veil, nor does it agi’ee either in color or shape of the spores. It is a frequent plant around Cincinnati, and mimics Boletus subtomentosus so closely both in color and shape of top of pileus of young plants, that we cannot distinguish them until we pick them up and examine the under si'le. Prof, Peck (23th Rep.) states “the pileus is noc always red, but varies sometimes toward yellow, sometimes toward brown.” With us it is always brown. 38— VOLVARIA BOMBYCINA. Pileus white or slightly fuscous, fleshy, soft, campanu- late then expanded, covered with silky fibers which become when old somewhat squamulose. Gills free, remote, flesh colored. Stipe solid, slightly attenuated upward, even, smooth, white. Volva large, thick, irregularly ruptured, per¬ sistent at the base of the stipe. Spores elliptic 6x8 me. This plant is frequent though not abundant. It mostly grows on maple and i.s fre¬ quently found on the decaying wood around a s\igar tap. We have seen it on beech. It is the largest species of the family. The volva is large and thick and it is not uiuisual to find the young plant entirely enclosed in the volva, looking like a young phalloid. Stevenson states it is “considered edibfe,” but we would be siispicious of it, especially as most Volvarias are re¬ puted poisonous. We present two photographs of the plant, an upi^er and under view, and from these photographs no one can mistake it, 39— VOLVARIA VOLVACEA. Pileus campanulate, than expanded, cinereous, covered with fine dark,^ appressed silky fibrils. Stipe solid, white, smooth, equal. Gills free, flesh colored. Volva thick, irreg¬ ularly broken. Spores elliptic, 5x7 me. This is a much smaller plant than bombycina and grows in the ground, usually in cel¬ lars, hot houses, Ac. We have collected it several years in the cellar of our drug store, and R. L. Hawkins has sent it to us from his drug store cellar. One j^ear we found it in the woods. , 40— PLUTEOLUS COPROPHILUS. Pileus expanded, thin, brown, finely and thickly striate, excepting the ever depressed disk, slightly viscid when moist. Flesh very thin with a slight pink tinge. . Gills free, narrow, pale cinnamon color. Stipe long, smooth, glabrous, hollow, pure white. Spores broadly elliptical, 9x11 me. Rrof. Reck describes this plant from “dung heaps” and calls it “dung-loving Rluteolus.” We have found it growing abundantly in rotten straw around straw stacks Avhich was free from maniire It is usually caespitose, and w'e have seen clumps where it has dried in situ. F'l-om our conversation with Rrof. Morgan we believe his description of Bolbitius radians was drawn from this plant. VVe have never seen it however, with the ••iiellicle broken into scales on the disk.” 41— BOLBITIUS SORDIDUS. Pileus ovate when young, explanate when mature, thin, pure snowy white when young, sordid when old, glutinous, hygrophanous, margin smooth and even when young, plicate 18 sulcate and ragged when old. Gills ovate, free, firm and white when young, becoming cinnamon color, moist and flaccid when old. No trace of veil even in the youngest plants. Stipe pure white, scurfy, hollow from the first. Spores ovate, 6x9 me. It grew on rotten shavings which had been used for horse bedding and wei'e mixed witli manure. Both Prof. Peck and Patouillard confirm my opinion that it is undescribed. Most species of Bolbitius are yellow, but this is pure white when young, no trace of yellow. Cono- cephalus of Europe is a white species but it is conical and the gills are broader. Prof. Peck says “I see no evidence of dissolving gills and it seems to me a Pluteolus.” Stevenson says of the gills of Bolbitius ‘•becoming moist (but not melting away,)” That the gills of our plant become fiaccid, can plainly be seen from our photograph. I do not understand that the gills of Bolbitius deliquesce like those of Coprinus. 42— CLTTOCYBE ILLUDENS. Pileus orange-red, fleshy, convex or expanded, obscurely ' umbonate, smooth, fibrillose, the cuticle sometimes cracking. Flesh concolorous. Gills unequally decurrent, narrow to¬ ward each end, orange yellow. Stipe long, smooth, solid, tapering to the base, usually somewhat excentric. Spores about globose, 5 me. This species grows caespitose in great clumps, usually at the base of a stum]n It is found in the woods, but its favorite habitat is at the base of stiimps in woodland pastures or old fields. In the fall of the year we find it in abundance, the large mass of bright color at¬ tracting the eye from a distance. 1 have noticed it from the road in a woods 800 feet away. No other plant is so frequently brought or sent to me for name, as its rich color and large size attracts the attention of all who see it. The beginner will be surprised to find the bright j/cltow gills throw down white spores. So far as known this is a peculiarly American plant, and was described by Schweinitz in 1822 under Gymnopus. He states that the gills are “branched” which we think is an error Fries in Novae Svmbolae (1851) from dried siiecimens sent by Curtis, concluded that it is a Panus, which is a good illustration of what an erroneoiis idea of a plant an experienced worker may get from dried material. Saccardo compiles it under both Panus and Clitocybe. Schweinitz attributed to it an odor disgusting “fastidiosus.” which Fries interprets foetid. If the plant has an unpleasant odor we have never noticed it, though we are deficient in the sense of smell. It is surely however not “foetid.” Prof. Fallow compares the plant to Pleurotus olearius of Europe and infers that it may be a Pleurotiis, with which genus it would not be far out of place. The plant when cooked has a pleasant taste but must be avoided, as both Prof. Farlow and Mrs. Williams record a number of cases of poisoning (none fatal however) from eating it. Its properties are strongly emetic. Under the head of “The ‘Jack my Lantern’ Mushroom” a name given tp it by the ne¬ groes, Mrs. M. E. Williams describes it in a recent number of “The Plant World” and notes a phosphorence given oil’ by the gills when placed in the dark. The plant is usually about a foot high and six to eight inches across the pileus. Our photograph was made from a very small specimen not one quarter the usual size. 43— COLLYBIA ZONATA. Pileus convex then expanded, thin, with a small umbili¬ cus, covered with coarse, tawny, densely matted hairs, ar¬ ranged in obscure zones. Stipe firm, slightly tapering down, covered with tawny hairs similar to those of the pileus. Gills narrow, free, white. Spores elliptical, 4-4^ me. This is a very characteristic plant and well named. It has many features in common with C. stipitarius, in fact seems an enlarged edition of that plant, but the discrepancy in size and habits is so great that we would not think of uniting them. Bresadola says“It is in my judgment a large varietj^ of C. caulicinalis, (usually known as C. stipitarius in this country, — Lloyd,) same spores, same basidia, same cystidia, and color of hair corresponds, only it is larger and dilTerent habitat.” We find thei'e is a specimen of this plant in the Schweinitzian herbarium labeled “Lentinus tenaciformis. S<-hw. Mss,” but Schweinitz never published it. This is a chai-acteristic plant and makes a characteristic photograph from which the ])lant can be recognized on sight, and we challenge any one to make a “colored plate” which will better depict the plant than the photograph that we send out. 19 44— STROBILOMYCES STROBILACEUS. Pileus blackish umber, tough, broken into large, thick, squarrose-squamose scales, the margin appendiculate with scales and fragments of the veil. Flesh whitish, changing to sienna-red then black when cut or bruised. Pores white, be¬ coming brown or blackish by age, large, angular, adnate to the stem or sometimes depressed, changing color when cut the same as the flesh. Stem equal, solid, floc- cose-tonientose, brown below lighter above. Spores subglobose, rough, 7- 10 me. This seems to be a frequent plant over Avide territory. It is more common with us than in Europe. It is known as the “Black Boletus.” Many authors (including Fries) place the genus Strobilomyces Avith the genus Boletus. It differs in having pores that are not easily separable from the pileus, besides its general habits and globose rough spores. Tavo forms, one with the tubes equal, the other Avith tubes shortened near the stem are found in this country, differing in no other respect. The latter form is the more frequent with us and is the one pho¬ tographed. It has often been referred to Strobilomyces floccopus, a species described Avith a thick veil appendiculate as a ring on the stem. We Avould not consider our American forms sufficiently distinct to merit different names. To those who have our sets of photographs it is needless to describe the plant. The photograph tells the whole story. 45— COLLYBIA RADICATA. Pileus convex, then expanded, frequently somewhat gibbous, thin, glabrous, generally rugose, usually slightly viscid, sometimes exceedingly glutinous. P'lesh white. Gills distant, broad, shining white, firm, adnexed and usually very slightly decurrent. Stipe long, rigid, slender, stuffed, at length striate, .smooth or furfura- ceous, always penetrating deep into the ground with a long tapering root. Spores large, elliptical, obliquely apiculate at the base, 15-17 me. Were I to be asked Avhat is the most common agaric around Cincinnati I would state this plant. From the middle of May, Avhen it first appears, till late in the fall, Ave seldom go into the Avoods Avithout meeting it. It A’aries in size from a little pileus 2 cm, across up to 15 cm, and groAvs from 5 cm. to 25 cm, high. Its usual size is pileus 6-8 cm. lu color in early sea¬ son, it is usually pure Avhite, but later broAvn or dark broAvn ; occasionally we meet a specimen juire yellow. It aPo varies much in viscidity, usually very slightly viscid, scarcely noticeable, at other times we meet plants A^ery glutinous. Notwithstanding its variations Ave soon learn to identify it at sight by the gills, Avbich once known, are ahvays recognizable, to say nothing of the long, tapering root. (See. young plant lying down in photograph.) W e do not recall another agaric with such large spores (15-17 me.) Our picture represents a cluster of plants as found in the woods. The plant however is more commonly solitary. 46 -A NEW ILLUSTRATED WORK ON MUSHROOMS. We have just received from Wm. Knox, of Cleveland, O., Part 1 of “Sketch Book of the Mycological Society of Cleveland, O.” We are glad to welcome all efforts in this line. Part 1 contains plates of the following species: — Psal- liota arvensis, Coprinus atramentarius, Pleurotus ostreatus, Coprinus micaceus, Lepiota naucinus, Marasmius oreades, Russula virescens and Lepiota procera. The original intention of the author was to issue these plates solely for the use of the members of the Mycological Society of Cleveland, O., but we have suggested to the author, and it has been adopted that plates of this kind would be of great service to all students throughout the country, and that it issued at a reasonable price, would probably have a wide circulation. Mr. Knox says that he will send the parts on receipt of 50 cents per part, consisting of eight plates and we would say they will be cheap indeed at that price. The artistic part of the work we consider very good in¬ deed. The drawings are quite characteristic of the species 20 indicated. The artist has not overlooked little details such as the annular zone on Coprinus atramentarius, showing that he is a mycologist as well as an artist. The plates have a natural appearance as though the plants grew, the author having avoided the stiff, inflexible effect we notice in manv illustrations of American agarics, as though they had been cast in a mold. We regret we cannot endorse the author’s coloring of the plates as we do the drawings, but we recognize how difficult it is to reproduce the colors of nature. In this re¬ gard however, they are no more at fault than many other plates, both of this country and of Europe. The plates will be of great service to anyone engaged in the study of mycology, and at the price offered should be in every worker’s hands. 47— THE FOMES OF EUROPE. Through the kindness of Rev. G. Bresadola we have re¬ cently received a full set of specimens illustrating the Fomes which occur in Europe, and a manuscript key to the various species described, showing Prof Bresadola’s views regarding their nomenclature and disposition. Prof Bresadola has given special study to the Polyporii and has compared specimens in various museums of Europe, including the collections of .the illustrious Persoon and Fries, and while this “key” was sent to me for my private information, I consider it too val¬ uable to be lost to the world and take the liberty of publish¬ ing it. It is a matter of gratification to me that Prof Bresa¬ dola’s views tend to the reduction of species, tor the undue publication of species on slight differences or insufficient knowledge of existing species, is one of the chief difficulties we must contend with in the study of' Mycology. The term “unknown” in the key must be read “unknown to Bresadola” to give it its true sense. We hope at an early date to pub¬ lish a paper on the American species of Fomes in the light thrown on them by comparison with Prof. Bresadola’s set from Europe. Prof Bresadola divides the genus into two genera. Fomes and Ganoderma, the latter distinguished by its col¬ ored spores and the shiny rigid crust of the pileus. The species marked with a * belong to Ganoderma. 21 KEY. Species in Fries’ Hymenomycetes Europaei. PILE ATE. australis, Fr.* vegetus, Pr.* lucidus, Leys.* Inzengae, Fr.=var. of fomentarius. Stevenii, Leveill- unknown, probably vegetus. roburneus, Fr.=var. of fomentarius.t applanatus, Pers.* fomentarius, Linn. nigricans, Fr =var. of fomentarius. ignarius, Linn, fulvus. Scop, (not Fr.) pectinatus, KL — European form=ribis. conchatus, Pers =salicinu8. Lonicerae, Weinm.^ribis. evonymi, Kalchb.^=ribis. ribis Schum., salicinus, Pers. cinnamomeus, Trog.=^fulvus. ungulatus, Schaef. pinicola, Fr,=:ungulatus. marginatus, F>.=ungulatus. rufopallidus, Trog.=roseus. roseus, Alb. & Schw. Demidoffii, Lev.=Trametes pini or its variet5^ ulmarius, Fr. gelsorum F'^r.— not valid. cytisinus, Berk.— unknown, probably fraxineus. connatus, Weinm.=populinus. fraxineus. Bull. variegatus, Seer. — unknown, probably ungulatus. carneus. Nees— Eurox>ean form==:roseus. castaneus, Fr.— unknown, very doubtful. annosus, Fr. populinus, Schum. Neesii, Fr. — unknowm, very doubtful. RESUPINATE. medulla-panis, Pers. medulla-panis var pulchellus, Schw. megaloporus, Pers. Uevigatus Fr.:-:-resupinate fulvus. obducens Pers.—^resupinate populinus. f“There exists no original sjjeciinen of this species in Fries’ herbarium. According to his diagnosis and certainly according to specimens of several authors, it is a variety of fomen¬ tarius. However, Fries’ illustration (Ic. t. 184 f. 2) is an exact picture of the stratified form of roseus.” — Bresadola. 22 Species not in Fries. rufofiavus, Berk. Braunii, llab.=rufofiavus. rubriporus, Quel. Pfeifferi, Bres.* Hartigii, Allescher. thelephoroides, Karst, — unknown. spongiosus, Pers. tenuis, Karst. =spongiosus, robustus, Karst.— unknown, resinaeeus, Boud.=var. of laecatiis. carnosus, Pat. — imperfectly known, hippopus, Wind. — imperfectly known, gelsicola, Berl.=australis. leucophaeus, Mont.* laccatus, Kalchb.* fucatus, Quel,=:Polyporus gilvus. 48— NOMENCLATURE. Finding that I have a couple of pages of “copy” to supply to fiir out this pamphlet, I will take the opportunity to “fill in” with a few remarks on the subject of nomencla¬ ture. I am well aware that my views on the subject are not in accord with most botanists and that probably they will not be acceptable to the majority of the readers of this leaf¬ let. I have noticed several criticisms of my failure to give the names of authorities after the names of plants and these criticisms are not unexpected. I have only to say concern¬ ing the subject that the omissions are made with design. I see no more reason why one who describes a plant should attach his name to it and cumber the pages of literature for all time with it than should one who discovers a new star, a new element, a new chemical compound, a new shade of color or a new anything else. It is necessary that the ob¬ ject should have a name, but it does not follow that it should be entangled for all time to come in print of every descrip¬ tion with the name of its namer. The personality of the man who chanced to stumble over it or who first described it, is neither useful nor neces¬ sary. We all appreciate the great, and I believe to a large extent unnecessary, useless weight our study carries in the form of synonyms, and know that several sets of rules have been evolved to govern the naming of plants. The trouble is botanists are not agreed on any set of “rules’’ nor in my opinion can any be formulated that will remedy the matter, 23 until botanists become scientists to the exclusion of their personalities. I therefore advocate the taking away of the main inducement (as I see the matter) to make synonyms. There is no question but that many writers are fond of seeing their names after a plant. Is it not a standing “reward” offered the searcher after “new species,” and a strong temp¬ tation to make “new species” on very slight differences? Let us omit the personality after the name of a plant and use it only in connection with the bibliographical citation after syiionyms^ and I believe that authors will be less free to propose new names unless they feel pretty sure ot their ground. I will state that I do not expect by voicing my opinion to change the general usage of botanists of the world, nor do I desire to quarrel with those who hold views opposed to my own, but in connection with this subject of nomenclature it is due my readers that I should explain my reasons for neglecting to weight my pages with personal names that seem to me to be unnecessary and objection¬ able. Knowing therefore that I do not accord with most writers and being aware that much can be said on the sub¬ ject, I simply make this note for the present to “fill in.” 49— PHOTOGRAPHS. The photographs accompanying this issue will be found to be unusually fine ; in fact we have selected for description mostly plants that make good photographs. The student of American agarics who fails to subscribe for these photo¬ graphs as issued is perhaps making a great mistake. They can be secured, as issued, at the slight expense of a dollar every month or two, and you will not feel the cost, but if you wait until the series has grown the expense of securing the back issues may deter you. As over twelve hundred prints have been distributed so far, I can not complain of a lack of appreciation ot the work, still I am glad to get subscriptions, as I feel it is the most practicable way to extend the know¬ ledge of our American agarics, and I take a pride in it. I wish again to disclaim any idea of profit in their distribution, for they are sold at exact cost to me .Three sets have been issued: Set No. 1 — 12 photos, mostly Lepiotas . $1 20 ” “ 2—10 “ “ Pluteus . 1 00 “ “ 3 — 10 “ various . 1 00 0. G. LLOYD, Court and Plum Sts., CINCINNATI, 0. 24 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV G. G. LLOYD. No. 4. CINCINNATI, o. NOVEMBER, 1899. 50— THE GENUS PS ALLIOTA.* The genus Psalliota is a brown spored genus belong¬ ing to the tribe Annulae and corresponds to Lepiota in the white spored series. Indeed so closely is it related to Lep¬ iota in general appearance that photographs of certain species could not be referred to either genus without other data. The characters of the genus are : Pileus distinct from the fleshy stem. Gills free. Veil membranous forming a ring. Spores brown. The genus further agrees with Lepiota in the tendency of the flesh of many species to change of color when bruised. There is a small corresponding genus, Annularia, in the pink spored series which is not recorded in this country, but no corresponding genus in either the yellow or black spored series. To our mycophagist friends this genus is of great im¬ portance as probably all its species are edible, although ' doubts have been thrown on comptula. It includes the widely known and universally eaten “campestris” which many persons suppose is the only “mushroom.” The spores of Psalliota are small, elliptical, about 4x5 me. They vary some in size, but not enough, however, we think, to form distinctive characters. One species (Rodmani) has globose spores. While the rings of many species of Psalliota are a sim¬ ple membrane, as we find in many Lepiotas, there are '•‘Most recent writers call this genus Agaricus. Tlie Linnaean idea of the genns Agaricus was "anj'thing with gills.” Fries modified the idea and defined a good genus dividing it into a number of snhgenera. Saccardo raised Fries’ suhgenera to generic rank, adopting Fries’ names <»f the suhgenera for all the genera with the exception of (me. PmlUota he calls A.t;ar;c?/s. why? because the first species that Linnaeus happened to list under Agaricus was a species of Psalliota. The name Agaricus has been applied to so many plants that its use is confusing as applied to a i)lant now. In our opinion it is belter to drop it alt.o(j ether. If Linnaeus had formu¬ lated any intelligent idea of a genus Agaricus as we know P-alliota now, tliere would he some claim to reiain his name. To continue a Linnaean name, viven when he had no idea concern¬ ing the genus, and especially when that name has been used so extensively and applied to so many different p'ants that it'has lost all suggestion of distinctiveness is had. To try to resr.rict the name now to a small section simpl v because one plant of that section was “mentioned first, by accident” -when we have a good descriptive name that con vey’s no idea txcepting of that ope section we think is unwise. 25 also species with peculiar rings which we know in no other genus. In the young plant of Psalliota placomyces a section through the veil is wedge shape. It hangs by its thin edge from near the top of the stipe, the lower thick end being attached to the margin of the young pileus. As the pileus expands, it tears and splits this wedge-shaped veil so that the ring formed from it has the appearance of a double membrane, hence the “duplicatus annulus” of Fries. Our photograph however, (distributed as No. 50) which we select to show this feature, is better as an illustration than the word explanation. I believe the character of the ring, if correctly observed and recorded, would be a good natural feature by which to subdivide the genus which is one of the few genera Fries did not subdivide on natural relationship. H ABiTAT. — All of our native species are terrestrial. Of the species I have met, campestris and its variety grow in manured ground and pastures, the remainder in the woods. Placomyces I have usually found in lawns and woodland pastures, but also in the woods. Literature. — Stevenson, page 304; Pries' Epic., page 278; Peck, New York Species, 36th Rep., page 41; Peck Edible Species, 48th Rep., page 133 and plates 6, 7, 8 and 9 ; Smith C. O. Species of Champlain Valley, Rhodora, September, 1899. 51— PSALLIOTA CAMPESTRIS. Pileus convex-expanded, white or whitish, appressed even silky when young, breaking into fibrillose scales when old. Gills broad, free, pink when young, becoming dark brown, almost black when old. Stem short, equal, stuffed, white. Ring near the middle, small, often torn or disap¬ pearing. The above descrii)tioii is made from the wild i)lant as it occurs toler- id)ly constant in characters with us. The plant is extremely varial)le, espec¬ ially in cultivation, and numerous varieties are named as having pilei brown, reddish, scaly, etc. We received plants from Mrs. Langenbeck which were jiure white and smooth. Psalliota cam])estris, better known perhaps as .Vgari- cns campestris, is the celebrated “edible mushroom” gathered in the fields and ])astures in the fall of the year. It is the only species which, to our knowledge, can be successfully cultivated and is raised in considerable quan¬ tities by gardeners in the vicinity of all large cities. The cultivated plant, as we notice it in market, is covered with brown scales and is a much darker colored plant than tlu* wild species around Cincinnati. A practicable method of cultivation is ex{)lained in detail in Farmers’ Bulletin No. 53. It is a manure loving s})ecie.s, at least it is grown in earth mixed with manure and usually found only in pastures and fields where stock are kept, not in parks or woods. Our photograpli represents the constant wild form al)out Cincinnati. The ring, it will be noticed, differs from the ring of other species photographed in sheathing the stem (peronate). One of our plants photo¬ graphed admirably shows this character. 52— PSALLIOTA CAMPESTRIS VAR. HORTENSIS. Pileus globose, then expanded, densely covered with pinkish fibrillose scales. Veil ample, flocculent, thin, form¬ ing a large pendulose ring. Gills at first white, then pink, at length reddish fuscous. Stem thick, hollow. This specimen was a large plant, pileus four to eight inches across when expanded. I have never met it growing, the plant was brought to me by Henry .1. Koch, a florist. At first from its large size I supposed it was arven- sis the “Horse Mushroom” of Europe, and it agrees well with Fries’ plate of this species, but it can not be the arvensis of England as described by all English writers and illustrated by Cooke and others. I am therefore forced to refer it to a cultivated form of campestris, although it seems to me to differ essentially in its veil. It agrees well with Cooke’s figure of this variety of campestris. 53— PSALLIOTA PLACOMYCES. Pileus sub-globose when young, explanate when mature, white, covered with numerous very small blackish brown scales. Gills close, free and somewhat remote, when very young white, as the veil breaks pink or rose color, when mature dark brown. Veil ample, somewhat reflexed, ex¬ ternally floccose. Stem very smooth, thickened somewhat bulbous below, tapering upward, containing a small pith or finally a small hollow. Spores small, 4x5 me., when fresh nucleate on one side. In this locality the plant is not rare, occuring in rich soil around yards and fields rather in preference to woods where, however, we sometimes find it. It is a beiutiful species, with its white pileus and numerous small, regu¬ lar dark scales ; I know none prettier. AVhen bruised the white pileus turn brown. To the touch the ])ileus is soft like kid leather. For a description of the peculiar veil see remarks on the genus. We distribute two photo¬ graphs, one of them undertimed in exposure so that the gills do not show, but it was necessary to so undertime it in order to give the proper effect of the ring and stem as well as the toj) of the })ileus of the aecom])anying plant. Profes¬ sor Peck describes the scales as brown but illustrates them yellow. With us they are very dark brown, almost black, and contrast strongly with the white pileus. .54 -PSALLIOTA SILVATICA. Pileus explanate, even, densely covered with fibrillose appressed brown scales. Flesh white, slowly becoming brownish when cut or bruised. Gills free, pink when young, dark when old, broader behind. Stipe nearly equal, slender. a re¬ white, smooth, hollow. Veil white, large, forming flexed ring on the stem. This plant was found late in the season in rich leaf mold in the woods. The prominent characters of the plant are the densely scaly pileus and the nearly equal stem. I had some trouble in determining the plant, owing to its departure from Cooke’s figure, but Bresadola has confirmed it, and we note that he states that Cooke’s plate is probably P. perrara. Our plant agrees well with recent plate in Fun^i Tridentini, It will be roticed that our plant does not accord to description in 36th Rep., and in Rhodora, pileus with a ''few ap- pressed scales.” Either the Eastern and Western plants vary much in the nature of tiie scales, or Prof. Peck, Burt and myself have applied the name to different plants. The p'ant is recorded by numerous observers, but it is rare here and we have never found it but once. 55— PSALLIOTA SILVICOLA. Pileus convex-expanded, pu7'e white, almost smooth, a few silky white fibrils only. Gills rose color when young, light brown when old, tree, rounded behind (“acute behind” — Stevenson). Ring large, loose, flocculent outside, flabby. Stem long, smooth, white, stuffed, cobwebby then hollow, bulbous at the very base. The plant is found only in woods. The books describe it as white or yellowish and Cooke’s figure is decidedly yellow. Our plant is pure wdiite but developed a yellow tinge when put in alcohol. Yittadini’s original figure is white, also Richon and Rose’s plate, which is an exact reproduction of the plant as we find it ! The plant is characterized by the smooth pileus and the peculiar bulb at the base. Another white, smooth species grows in Europe, cretac^a, (re¬ ported from this country probably based on this species) hot it is found in fields and has a diflerent stipe. 56— PSALLIOTA COMPTULA. Pileus explanate, yellow, darker at the disk, fibrillose, the free ends of the fibrils forming appressed scales. Flesh white, thin. Gills free, close, dark brown, becoming black. Stipe yellowish, stuffed then hollow, slightly thickened at the base. It grows solitary or somewhat gregarious in woodland' pastures or open woods. I frequently find it and note it mentally as “the little yellow psaliiota.” It is the only small species I have met and is rarely over 5 cm. l)road. Burt finds the plant in the East corresponding very closely to the European s})ecies in color, viz., white, somewhat cream colored disk, but all the plants we have seen were pure yellow, without, however, any reddish or brownish tinge. It seems to be rare in the East, being recorded by only Burt, Peck and Banning, but we have collected it several times. 57— PSALLIOTA EXSERTA. (doubtful determination.) Pileus expanded, white, smooth, the f[e9]i turning red u'hen hnmed. Ring remote, thin, flabby, floccose beneath. Gills free. Stem slender, stuffed then hollow, equal or slightly thickened at the very base. This plant is found in the woods but is rare here. The determination is very doubtful, being based 28 solely on the description in Fries’ and that too without access to the plate of Viviani. I fail to see the application of “exserta” if ours be the plant. Tlie feature of the plant is toe red spots that appear on the pileus when bruised. There ar-^ two other species reported from this country, Inemorrhoidaria and maritima, the flesh of which turn red when bruised, but our plant can be neither of these. Synopsis and notes on species of Psalliota recorded from this country. 58 — Psslliota achiinenes, described fifty years ago from dried specimens and not r-*cognized since. Very similar t> the plant we now know as placomyces. but pileus said to be '‘studded with warty excrescences.” 59 — Psalliota argentea, a small species, described from dried specimens having pileus “grayish white or grayish brown, shining with a silvery luster when dry ” (See Bull. Torr. Club, 1899, p'oge 88). 60V-Psalliota amygdalina, listed by Curtis, never described. 61 — Psalliota arvensis, the “horse mushroom” of England. A large white or yellowish, smooth species with a large radiating split ring (see Steven¬ son, page 305) . Frequently recorded and rather common in the East, but I have never seen it, although it was “identified” among some dried specimens sent Berk-*ley from Cini-innati. 62 — Psalliota bulbosa, a large pale yellow species, described from Cali¬ fornia. Very suggestive of “arvensis.” 63 — Psalliota Californica, described from dried specimens from California (see Bull. Torr. Club, Vol. 22, page 203). Psalliota eampestris (see No. 51 preceding). Psalliota comptula (see No. 56 preceding). 64 — Psalliota crefacea. Recorded by Curtis, Harkness and Peck only in his earliest reports (omitted from Peck’s later reviews). Determinations probably based on silvicola (which see). 65 — Psalliota diminutiva, a small species, very close to comptula, de¬ scribed by Prof. Peck, but having reddish or brownish hues (see 36th Re])., j)age 49). 66 — Psalliota echinata, a small European species (see Stevenson, page 308), recorded only by Sciiweinitz, “rare in green houses,” North Carolina. 67 — Psalliota elvensis. a European species (see Stevenson, page 304), re¬ corded on v^'ry doubtful authority. Psalliota exserta, doubtfully determined (see No. 57 proceeding). 68— Psalliota fabacea, described by Berkeley (see Lea’s Catalogue), from dried specimens as having a viscid pileus . A"ery common in early days, judging from the fact that Berkeley recognized it in three collections (from Sprague. Lea and Curtis). Not recog niztd last fifty years, probably due, we think, to it having been misdescribed '"with a viscid pileus.'^ 69 ~ Psalliota fcederata, described forty years ago, from dried specimens not recorded since. Probably based, we think, on the plant we now know as comptula, but said to have “striate margin” (who knows a striate Psalliota?) and pileus granular with white squamules (who knows a granular Psalliota?). 70_X>saliiota hmmorrhoidaria. (See Cooke’s illustration and Steven¬ son, page 307). This European species called the “bleeding mushroom,” from the flesh turning red, is a large scaly species and rare in this country, being recorded only bv Clem-nts (Nebraska) and Peck (45th Rep.). 71_Psalliota magnifica, a large species, described from dried specimens from Pennsylvania (See Bull. Torr. Club, 1899, page 68). 72 — Psalliota maritima, a s])ecies with ‘‘maritime habits.” The flesh oi the pileus turns red when bruised (See Bull. Torr. Club, 1899, page 66). Psalliota placomyces (See No. 53 preceding). 73_Pgalliota Rodmani, a smooth, white species, resembling “campestris in size nad general appearance but distinct in its narrow gills, solid stipe, globose spores and peculiar collar (See 48th Re^)., plate 9). Psalliota silvatica (See No. 54 preceding;. Psalliota silvicola (See No. 55 preceding). 74 — Psalliota subrufescens, a ra^e species in wild state (only once met with by Prof. Peck) but found abundantly in a green house by Wm. Falconer 29 (8ee 48th Rep., page 138). ft seems very close to cultivated forms of campes- tris, differing in the uiichaiigeable flesh and the floccose-squamulose ring (See 48th Rep., plate 7). 75- Psalliota tabularis, described from Colorado, dried s})ecimens. Strongly cliaracterized by “deeply rimose-areolate pileus, the areohe pyramidal, truncate” (Seo Bull. Torr. Club, Vol. 22, page 203). 76— Psalliota xylogena, a yellow species, described from a drawing sent to Eurojie 40 years ago as growing on wood. A few' rare species do grow on wood but save this none are known in our country and no one has ever recog¬ nized this one since it w^as described 40 years ago. 77 — Synonyms used in connection with the American genus. Psalliota edulis=Psalliota arvensis. “ exquisita=^ “ “ “ Hornemanni^=Stropharia Hornemanni. Johnsoniana=^ “ Johnsoniana. “ pratensis=Psalliota campestris (form). semiglobata=^Stropharia semiglobata. “ stercoraria^^ “ stercoraria. 78— LEPIOTA RAOHODES. (See Mye. Xote.«!, No. 40.) Pileus, when young, covered with an even, smooth, brown, continuous cuticle which, as the plant grows, sepa¬ rates (excepting on the disk) into loose scales that fall away leaving the surface much torn with fibrillose scales. The outer cuticle remains entire at the disk. Flesh white, turn¬ ing reddish when bruised. Gills free, remote, white. Ring movable. Stem stout, strongly bulbose at the base, smooth We are indebted to Geo. B. Fessenden, President of the Boston Myco- logical Club, for fresh specimens from wdiich our notes and photographs w^ere made. The jilant seems to occur only in the Fiastern States There is no (luestion of the correctness of the determination. The plant agrees well with Vittadini’s plate and description, and Bresadola confirms it. Cooke’s plate was evidently made from the same species but is a poor illustration of it. In this country there has been much confusion about the species. Tho “rach- odes” of early American workers is the x>lant we now call Americana (See No. 8). Frost seems to be the first to correctly iilentify it, but both plants grew with him. Save in its property of turning red wiien bruised it has little in common with Americana but is very close to jirocera. It differs from procera in its smooth stem, in the entire absence of an umbo, and in the more ragged surface of the x^ileus wiien the outer cuticle has jieeled off (hence the name rachodes from a Greek wmrd meaning a ragged garment). Our jfiiotographs of the two sjjecies would indicate a marked difference in rachodes having a large bulb at base of stipe, but I am advised by Mr. Fessenden that this feature is not constant. The following notes from Mr. Fessenden are from observations on the growing })lant. “I have seen large specimens with stipes 2^ inches in diameter and shaped like an onion stalk, but this shape is unusual. The pileus does not turn red at once by bruising but the stix)e does. I think it turns as quickly as Americana, although the flow of the juice is not (piite so x^rofuse. When young the pileus is more globose than x^rocera and wiien mature is slightly depressed or perfectly even at the disk. It is gregarious in habits. \\ e usually find several growing together at the base. I have observed that it grow's in exactly the same locality year after year and increases in quantity each year. It comes early and lasts until the ground freezes. It is an edible species and on account of its persistent recurrence from the same mycelium 1 think it C(^uld be successfully cultivated.” 30 79 — The Genus Volvaria Again. (See Mj'c. Notes, Xos. 15, 3« an(^ 89. ( We present additional photographs of two species. 80— VOLVARIA PUSSILA. At the time we described this plant (see No. 18) we had no good photograph from nature and reproduced a European plate. We are glad to publish a photograph showing well this little species and its peculiar four parted volva. 81— VOLVARIA VILLOSAVOLVA Pileus convex, even, dry, silky fibrillose, somewhat rimose, gray. Gills free, remote. Stipe solid, pure white, smooth, slightly taper- ingupward. Volvaglobose, densely covered with long, white myceloid hairs. Spores globose, 5 me. We found this plant growing attached to fallen leaves and rich earth in a damp ravine in the woods. The abundant white myceloid hairs which extend up and cover the volva are its prominent characters. They are very tender and dry quite quickly. When the plants were gathered and before we could get them home to photograph, the tender • hairs had disappeared from our best specimen, the middle one in the photograph, though well shown on the small s})ecimen on the right, the one here figured. We have seen this species but once, but then found quite a colony of them, every one strongly characterized by the white myceloid hair. Had this plant been described from a dried specimen its characteris^tic feature would have been omitted. 82 -DRIED SPECIMEN DESCRIPTIONS. We note in a recent Bulletin of Kew Gardens, thatMassee has published a number of “new species” of Agarics from dried specimens sent from the Straits Settlement and other Colonies. What a lot of trouble is in store for the future workers in those countries when they attempt to identify the grow¬ ing plants from these descriptions! If Prof. Massee realized the terrible jum¬ ble American mycology is now in thanks to the misdirected efforts of Berke¬ ley, ]VIontagne and others to describe our i)lants from dried specimens we can not believe that he would continue this line of work. We take no exceptions to “new species” from dried specimens of ])lants that retain their characters when dry, such as Gestromycetes. most Polyi)erii, etc , but in the case of Agarics we feel arid candidly state that nine-tenths of the descriptions are not only useless but worse than useless. Our synopsis of Psalliota in this pamphlet illustrates this fact. Four sjrecies of Psalliota were described by Berkeley and !Montagne forty to fifty 31 Fig:, a.. Volvaria villosavolva. Fig 1. Volvaria pussila. years ago from dried specimens sent from this country. Not a species so described has been recognized in the field by any worker with American Agarics. Montagne so described fifty or more agarics from Columbus. If Prof. Peck has ever recorded any of them in his thirty years collections we have over¬ looked his record. Does anyone believe that fifty agarics grew about Colum¬ bus, O., and that a large percentage of them do not occur in New York? Why should our literature be burdened with such descriptions? 83— MANUAL. Workers with Myxomycetes are to be congratulated on the splendid hand book, “ The North American Slime-Moulds,” which has just been issued by Prof. Macbride. Why can we not have a manual of Agarics? We believe that but one man in this country, Prof. Chas. Peck, has a wide and critical knowledge of growing agarics, and we hoi)e he can be induced to give us a manual. Prof. Pt^ck’s knowledge of the growing plants would be invaluable if pre'ented in a complete form, and the interest in the subject is such now that the book would be issued at a profit. Prof. Peck has worked thirty years with the agarics of New York and knows them as does no other man and we repeat that a book embodying his observations concerning the growing plants would be the greatest boon that American students could have. 84— NOTES. We note with pleasure in the April number of Khodora, a paper on the Vermont Helvellfe by Prof. E. A. Burt. Nothing can aid our knowledge of our native fungi as much as the systematic description of specimens occurring in localities, and we are in hopes to see more work of the same nature from Prof. Burt’s pen. Calvatia aurea (vide Myc. Notes, No. 22), seems to be a widely distrib¬ uted plant. We have received specimens from Edward P. Ely, of Connecti^ me. No. 5009. 114— POLYPORUS FUSCO-MACULATUS. Pileo papyraceo-membranaceo in sicco, flabelliformi, alutaceo— brimneo, squamis saturatioribus, adpressis variegato, 7-8 cm. lato, 4-0 cm. antice producto; stipite laterali, suberoso-molli, alutaceo, 1^-8 ^cm. longo, 1-1% cm. crasso, basi hand nigro; tubulis brevibus, vix 1 mm; poris amplis, angiilatis, acie demnm fimbriatis, generatim 1 mm. latis; sporis liyalinis, oblongis, 8-10x8-4 me. No. 5004. Obs. Species haec liabitu Polyporo squatnoso (Huds. )‘Fr. admo- dum similis, sed substantia papjTaceo-membranacea (saltern in sicco) pilei et spongioso-molli stipitis, stipite bavSi hand nigro etc., certe ab eodem distincta. 115— PORIA FUMOSA. Late effusa, griseo-fnmosa; subicnlo spongioso-membranaceo„ % mm. circiter crasso, ambitu tomentosnlo, sterili; tubulis 1 mm. cir- citer longis; poris minntis, subrotnndatis vel angulatis, saepe e situ ob- liqiio-oblongis; hyphis 8-4 me. latis ; sporis liyalinis, obovato-suban- giilatis vel semiluniilatis, 4 x 2% -8 me. Obs. Forma porornm saepe e loco natali pendet; si ad ramos prostratos species crescunt, tunc pori recti, regulares, siveroad ramos stantes, tunc saepe obliqni, oblongati etc. No. 5042. *In a collection of Fun^i made on the Island of Upohi (Samoa) were a number of specimens which Me.ss. Bresadola and Patouillard have decided are new to science. We print diagnoses of these species as prepared by Rev. G. Bresadola. It is probable that in a future number of our “Notes” we will give our memoranda on the collection of the various specie.s, with illustra¬ tions of the nio.st characteristic. 49 C. G. EEOYD. Jl()— PTKRULA FASCICUIvARIS. Caespitoso-fasciciilaris; caespitulis parvis, 1cm. circiter altis, cm. basi latis; ramulis cartilagineis, filiformibus, simplicibus vel raro hie illic ramosis, sordicle gilvis; substantia ex hyphis tenacibus, 3 me. crassis; basidiis clavatis vel siibcylindraceis, 30-35 x 9-10 me.; sporis globosis, 9-12 me. diam. Obs. Pteriilae subsimplici, P. Hemi, affinis. No. 5012. 117— GEASTHR LFOYDII. Exoperidio membranaceo, 1- 0-fido, revoluto, intus brunneo, laeve, extus luride alutaceo, tomentoso-villoso, tomento ex hyphis tor- tuoso-intricatis, crasse tunicatis, more Hirneolae polytrichae^ conflato, basi mycelio copioso, radiciformi, albo, praedito; laciniis obovatis', infra medium partitis; endoperidio globoso-obovato, papyraceo, sessili, glabro, avellaneo-nmbriiio; peristomio indeterminato, piloso fimbriato; capillitio brnimeo-fnsco, ex hyphis 3-8 me. latis conflato; columella clavata vel clavato-snbeapitata; sporis globosis, laevibns, flavis, episporio cras.so, fnsco, 3-1 me. diam. Obs. Species haec exoperidio tomentoso ab aliis hnjns generis speciebns nobis notis optime distincta. Forte Geastri velutino^ nobis ignoto, proxima. No. 5003. 118— GLOBARIA SAMOENSE. Peridio ses.sili, vel snbradicato, basi fibrillis micelialibns, albis, copiosis, praedito, ntriformi vel obovato, apice ore lacerato, irregnlari, dehiscente; cortice externo fnrfnraceo, nmbrino, grannlis parvis, saepe pyramidatis, demnm decidnis, dense obsito; cortice interno papyraceo, pallide alntaceo; gleba matnra olivaceo-fnsca, basi skrili nulla] capillitio laxo, ex hyphis snbhyalinis, 3-5 me. latis, conflato; sporis globosis, laevibns, fnlvis, nncleis flavidis, 3-3l^ me. diam. Obs. Globaf'iae furfurjceae, Schaeff. affinis, a qua forma, indn- mento peridii, hyphis capillitii etc. optime diversa. No. 5010. 119— HYPOCREA MESENTERICA. Stromatibns carnoso-lentis, late lobatis, lobis plicato-nndnlatis, alntaceis, ex ostiolis peritheciornm brnnneo-pnnctatis, intns albidis; peritheciis adpressatis, ovatis, minimis, snccineis, immersis; ascis, siibcylindraceis, basi attennatis, 90-100 x 5-0 me.; sporidiis e dnabns cellnlis, cnboideis vel snbellipticis, 1-5 x 3>^-l me. compositis. No. 5017. 120— HUMARIA EEOYDIANA. Ascomatibns carnosis, jnnioribns basi obeso-snbstipitatis, bene evolntis sessilibns, explanato-concavis, anrantiacis, glabris, basi albo- fibrillosis, 5-12 mm. latis; hymenio laevi, vivide anrantiaco; ascis cyl- indraceis, 210-250 x 12-11 me.; paraphysibns ramosis, 2-3 me. latis, apice vix incrassatis; sporidiis ellipticis, 1-2-gnttatis, hyalinis, 18-20 x 10-11 me. Obs. Species haec media inter Humariam bellam^ B. et C. et H. iaeiicolorenp B. et Br. No. 5019. 50 121— lloydella, bres. n. gex. Lloyddla^ n. gen.= "^tereu??!, hymenio cystidiis praedito — prouti Hyme?iochaete=zSte?'eum setulis praedita. To this genus should be referred: Lloy della cinerascens ( Schw.) Sinaia (Schrad.) (=Stereuiu striatum, abietiuum, glaucesceus,) “ Chailleiii “ spadicea (Pers.) “ “ var. venosa^ Quel. “ bicolor (Pers.) “ membranacea ^ Fr. “ papyrina Mout. “ ferrea B. & C. Siereum frusiulosum and Si. areolaimn both are rather Pe?tiophora. 122— PLEUROTUS SUBPALMATUS. Pileus rose or pink color, expanded, smooth, or the surface curi¬ ously raised into a network of reticulations, when moist .somewhat gelatinous. Flesh pink. Gills adnate, pale pink color, (becoming deeper salmon color). vStipe slightl}' eccentric, flesh}^ .solid, with flesh pale reddish. Spores white with a faint pinkish-cast, sub-globose () me. min¬ utely echinulate or angular. Very rare, growing on rotten logs. We have met it but once, but we know it has been found in Kansas and Minne.sota. About fifteen 3^ears ago. Prof. Cragin then of Kansas, started out apparently to conquer the whole known field of Natural Historjv We find him writing papers on Rep- Fig. 33. tiles. Mammals, PArns, Lichens, Microscopic pieurotus subpaimatus, a small specimen, fungi, Gcolog^y Fishes, M3Tiapods, Spiders, Mineralogy, Hymenoptera, Concholog\y Protozoans and the larger fungi. In the latter field, after an experience covering one or two collecting seasons, he de.scribes a large number of “new .species,” (most of which work by the wa}^ would have been better done if it had not been done' at all). Among others the plant under consideration, which although he did not even know its genus, did not deter him from describing it as a “new species,’, under the name “Agaricus alveolaris,” and s.ction of pi..rotas sub,.im.tus. thought that it belonged to the Hyporhodii. Saccardo compiles it under Pluteus. If it belongs to H3q3orhodii it would be an Entoloma or Claudopus, 51 I am indebted to Mary S. Whetstone, Minneapolis, Minn., for material that enables me to to definitely locate to my satisfaction the plant. When I collected it I did not procure a deposit of spores suffi¬ cient to enable me to feel sure of their color. Mrs. Whetstone has saved a good spore deposit for me and I find that the spores are al¬ most white, with a pale rosy tint, not deeper however than we find in the common species “sapidus,” which no one has essayed to take out of the “white-spored” species. At the same time the angular shape of the spores are anomalous in the genus Pleurotus and strongly indi¬ cate Entoloma. The raised reticulation of the pileus as shown in our illustration are sufficiently characteristic of the plant to enable anyone who may have met this form, to readily recognize it. All plants how¬ ever, do not have these peculiar reticulations, as is shown in the cross section which we present, and which grew in the same clump as the other, but the plant agreed with it in everything save in these reticu¬ lations. Prof. Morgan met and correctly determined the plant many years ago. Prcf. Webster records it in the 8th Bulletin of the Boston Myc. Club, but we judge there it is a compilation rather than based on specimens he had met. Cooke’s illustration while much larger than we meet is evidently the same plant, but Sowerby’s plate (02 ) which is referred here by Fries and others, cannot possibly be our plant. Pleurotus tremens ( Quelet Bull. Soc. Bot. France, 1877), seems to be very much the same with a lateral stipe. 123— COLL YBIAS. Regarding the illustrations of Collybias in last issue of Myco- logical Notes, Prof. Bresadola writes : “ColE’bia lachnophylla, in my opinion a synonym for Agaricus cohaerens, and has nothing in common with Collybia acervata, which is a form of Marasmius erythropus.” This leaves open the question what is the plant that both Prof. Peck and I have taken for C. acervata ? Let us hope to obtain further light on if during the present season. “Your Collybia borealis is perhaps C. inolens of Europe.” — Bresadola. Carlton Rea, secretary of the British-Mycological Society, favors us with a ver}’ interesting note on C. butyracea. “Your photograph of C. butjTacea does not suggest that plant to my mind as I know it, and it is a perfect pest with us in the autumn months. There is a soap}’ feel about the pileus which also occurs with Tricholoma sapona- ceum. Again the stem is cartilaginous and very spongy so that you can press it in and it will spring back in the same way as Clitocybe clavipes. It is stuffed with a few white fibrils and becomes hollow when old.” Mycological Notes are published without subcription price, and we are willing to send to all who are making a special study of fungi. If you will favor us with specimens of your “puff-balls” you will more than repay us. 52 124— NOTES ON TRIOHOLOMA RUTILANS. Fig. ?5. Tricholoma rutilans, form with pectinate gills. During a trip that I mac'e to Northern Michigan in the summer of J899, I met specimens of a plant that I thought was this species, ' but the gills were white, the edges thin and entire, and on my return home I felt more certain of the determination on looking up Cooke’s plate, which is a good representation of the plant I found, iiot only as to shape, size and markings, but (strange to say) as to color. Still Fries states ''giWs yellow, edges thickened and villOvSe,” and Stevenson “gills yellow, the edges thickened, obtuse and fioccose.’’ This sum¬ mer, in the same station, I found the plant more abundant and speci¬ mens with all the gills white, edges entire; specimens with the gills 3’ellow, the edges of the gills pectinate with little processes that re¬ minded me of the cystidia which we sometimes note with the naked e3’e on the gills of Coprinus. Our photograph well shows them. These processes however, are not C3’stidia. Sometimes we notice specimens with onl3' a few of the gills bearing these processes, the most of them being white and entire, and curious enough in these cases the few gills bearing these processes were There seems to be some connec¬ tion between these processes and the 3’ellow coloring matter. The color of the stem also varies much, some were mostl3' white as shown in Cooke’s plate, some 3’ellow, and rarel3' we met specimens with the stem purplish like the pileus. Since this plant is so variable, we do not question but that T. variegatum is a S3mon3nn. 5:1 125— FUNGI TRIDENTINI. The recent fascicle (No. XIV) of Bresadola’s splendid work is of particular interest to American mycologists in that there are referred to Enropena species three plants heretofore .supposed to be pecnliarl}^ American. 12()— ceitocybe tabescens. Bresadola has determined that the plant we considered and gave the American history under the name Clitocybe monadelpha, (see Myc. Notes No. 36), is identical with a plant described by Scoparius in 1772 under the name Agaricus tabescens and figured by Bnlliard under the name Agaricus gymnopodins. As in the following plant Fries who knew the plant only from the illustration, erred as to the color of its spores and called it a Elammula, (Hym. Europe, p. 244). If Bresa¬ dola’s views needed any confirmation, several years ago the editor of “Revue M3"cologique’ ’ in reviewing Peck’s illustration of the plant, claimed that it was the European species. We cannot but feel that “ M3’cological Notes’’ have added their mite in clearing up this matter. When we described Clitocybe monadelpha in 1899, Bresadola wrote us for specimens, stating that he thought he recognized in our description a plant of Europe. We are only sorr3^ that our friend Father Eanglois did not live to learn of this decision, for 3^ears ago he contended in his letters to us that the two plants were the same, a statement which we at the time opposed, for we did not suppose that it was possible for Fries so far to err. 127— EEPIOTA BADHAMI. Our plant known here as Eepiota Americana is stated to be the same as the above species of Europe, which we suspected when we considered it (vide M3"c. Notes, No. 8). It was first described and figured b3^ Bulliard, Agaricus haematospermus (PI. 595, f. 1), and Fries who knew it onh^ from Bulliard’ s figure and dried specimens referred it to Psalliota (S3^st. M3^c. Vol. 1, p. 282 and H3mi. Europ. p. 282). Fries however, was doubtful about its genus, for he states “I regret not having examined the .spores. P’rom the name the3" are blood red, though that .seems dubious, in mass.’’ After seeing Bresadola’s fig¬ ure, which is a far better illustration of our plant than an3" American colored figure 3’et produced, and knowing that Bresadola has examined dried .specimens of our plant, there can be no question of the practical identit3" of the American and European plant. Still there is one dis- crepanc3’ in the description that we .should like to .see reconciled. Bresa¬ dola describes the .spores as “stramineae.’ ’ We feel confident that our plant has spores pure white, and .shall give special attention to it during the coming season. Bresadola calls the plant Eepiota haematosperma. We would prefer the name Eepiota Badhami, for per.sonalh' we do not hold ourselves stricth^ bound 133'' the “laws of priorit3q’ ’ and do not believe in restoring an old name when that restoration perpetuates an error. Even if the plant has straw-colored spores, the name haema- tospernia is a misnomer. We consider that the plants themselves have 54 some rights in the matter of names, and that there is no justice in burdening a plant which has white or straw-colored spores with the name “blood-spored.” Bulliard blundered in assuming that as the plant was red, its spores were red, or at least was careless in naming it, which is not ground enough for us to forever flaunt this blunder. As a matter of history it is interesting, as a matter of justice, both to the plant and to Bulliard let us forget it as soon as we can. 128— PHYLLOPORUS RHODOXANTHUS. The good wishes of our friend Dr. Herbst, when we referred this plant to Flammula, that it was a good resting place and he hoped it would stay there, has not borne fruit, for already we And the plant under a new name. Bresadola has done an inestimable service in settling for once and all that the American and European plants are the same. Here again “Mycological Notes” have aided in the good work, for it was our description of the plant (see Myc. Notes, No. 87) that first drew Bresadola’s attention to Schweinitz’ species, and he wrote us for specimens of our plant. Bresadola refers it to a new genus Phylloporus established for it by Quelet and described as having gills, “venosely connected at the base or often porose-anasto mating,'’'' (italics ours) . Strictly speaking, this description does not fit our American plant, the gills of which are admirably described b}- Atkinson, “A few are forked toward the base, and the surface and the space between them are marked by anastomating veins forming a reticulum suggestive of the hymenium of the PoE^poraceae. The character is not evident with¬ out the use of a hand lensT (Italics ours). Still no one who has seen Bresadola’s figure and knows the American plant, can question the essential identity of the two, notwithstanding the European plant is decidedly^ polypoid and the American plant onl}" suggestivel}" poE^poid. We say no one, we mean no one who does not cast his species in iron moulds, and who recognizes plants as living beings capable of slight changes according to their environments. We are quite' content to place this plant in a new genus, although it is going to embarrass future writers to fit the American plant to the generic characters. Our plant never was a ver}" good Flammula, and a no better Paxillus. 129— PROF. ATKINSON’S BOOK. We hail with delight the appearance of this book, because we believe it is the beginning of a new era in the stud}- of American Fungi. When our writers begin to appreciate the fact that it is their dut}’ to their co-workers to so describe and illustrate the plants they consider that others meeting them can feel a certainty of the determi¬ nation, then we are getting on safe ground and real progress will be made. Prof. Atkinson’s work is not exhaustive. He has wisely con¬ fined himself to plants he has met, and studied as they grew, and re¬ frained from entering that shadowv world of recorded traditions con¬ cerning American agarics largely based on mummified remains. The illustrations of the book are superb, mostly photo reproductions, and it is evident that it is beginning to dawn on Agaric students that a good photograph is the best illustration that can be made of a fungus, notwithstanding its “lack of color.” If some of our European friends will take the hint and issue good photo reproductions of their plants, it would be a veritable boon to American mycologists who are working with a mycological flora, essentially the same, and are struggling to reconcile our plants with the crude, exaggerated and often conflicting plates purporting to represent European species. Prof. Atkinson has been ver}" modest in the publication of new species and has gotten some nice things, such as Hypholoma rugo- cephalum and Paxillus corrugatus, both of which we have known and of which we have had photographs for several years. His Eepiota asperula is what we would call acutesquamosa, and we think his note on the latter species applies to something else. His M^'cena c^mnothrix is to our mind Peck’s subcaerulea, not as stated by Prof. Webster in his review of the book, cyaneobasis ; (the latter plant we think is Bresadola’s calorhiza). We do not offer the above as criticism of the book, for it cannot be expected that in our present uncertainty regarding American agarics, wwkers will agree on all the species. We rather offer it as evidence of highest praise for the work, that Prof. Atkinson has so plainly de¬ scribed and illustrated his plants, that we recognize those with which w^e are familiar at once. If we had any adverse criticism to offer, it would be in regard to the title “Mushrooms, edible, poisonous, etc.” The book is too valuable from a systematic and scientific view to have the inference in the title that it was issued solely for the “mush¬ room eaters.” 130— SAVE YOUR “PUFF BALLS.” No one can render me a greater service than by collecting and sending me such puff-balls as may come under their observation. As this article will reach many who perhaps have never given the subject of puff-balls much thought, a few suggestions may not be amiss. Every countr}" bo}^ is familiar with the puff-balls that grow about the fields. Boys are observing creatures, and I remember it was my espec¬ ial delight when I was a boy to kick the “Devil’s Snuff Boxes” in or¬ der to see the “smoke” fly. You may be surprised to learn that there are dozens of different kinds of puff-balls, each characteristic and pos¬ sessed of peculiar shapes, or markings on the surface, or color of the “smoke” and that they can be readily studied and classified, and have names. The “smoke” (or spores) is a fine dust, analogous to the seed in other plants, and each particle of the dust is capable under proper conditions of germinating and producing puff-balls. Under the microscope each variety has its own sort of spores, some are smooth, some rough, some round, some oval, some have long tails, etc., etc. We present herewith photographs of .some of the various kinds of pnff-l)alls. First, there are the Lycoperdons, (Fig. 2()) and if yon notice it closely 3^ will note that it is covered with little soft spines’ stellately arranged. These spines differ nuich in various kinds and are important in classification. We have more varie¬ ties of F3’coperdon than any other family of puff-balls, iMost of them are about the size of the kind figur¬ ed, but some are no larger than hazel nuts. While some are shaped as shown, most are almost globose, and some are shaped like a pear. When full3" ripe L3'Coperdons open with a little mouth from which the spores escape. Then there are the Sclerodermas, (Fig. 27) thick skinned puff-balls which grow some¬ times in the greatest abundance. The kind we have figured is partic ularl3" fond of chestnut woods. Then the Geasters, which have the shell in two la3'ers, and when ripe the outer splits up into segments and turns back like a star. The3' are often called “Earth Stars.” We are particularE^ anxious to get Geasters. Besides these three families are Bovistas, Bovistellas, Arachnions, T3dostomas, and others. T3dostomas are little puff-balls that grow up on stems. WHEN TO GATHER PUFF-BAELS. For the purpose of stud3^ puff-balls must be ripe, that is the3' must be full of the dr3" dust. When young most kinds are white and when 3’ou cut them the3' appear like “cottage cheese.” The3" are most- 13’ good to eat in this condition, but not to stud3v The best time to gather them is just when the3’ are getting ripe, just when the white has become moist, and discolored and spines are just dr3dng up and beginning to flake off. Then 3’our specimens will if carefulh’ dried re¬ tain enough of the spines to be eas- ih’ determined and the spores will ripen as the specimen dries. But do not hesitate to pick up ripe puff¬ balls even if the spines have fallen off. The3’ are all of value // Fig:. 27. Scleroderma. Mm; Fig. 3B. Ljcoperdon. HOW TO GATHER PUFF-BAEES. vSimply pick them up, handle them carefull}" so as not to mash them, and if the}^ are just ripen¬ ing and are moist , spread them out on the floor in a garret or where they will be out of the way and let them dry. Then pack them loosely in a little box, don’t squeeze or bruise them, and ex¬ press or mail to me. If yon rec¬ ognize different kinds, keep them separate. If yonr boxes are not full, pack in loosely, a little cot¬ ton or tissue paper ^cotton is bet¬ ter) to fill out. Do not wrap in paper or put in paper bags. If 3’on have enough to justify send by express at my cost, if onl}^ a small box by mail, and I will re¬ fund postage. DO NOT SEND large ONES. The puff-balls we are anxious to get are the little fellows about the size of walnuts or apples and especiall}’^ the very small ones like hazel nuts. There are a great many different kinds of small ones. There are onl}- a few kinds of the big ones, say three inches or more in diameter, and it is not worth while to send them. If yon are send¬ ing a lot of little ones b}^ express, it would be well however, to enclose a single ripe specimen of any large kind 3'On ma^'' find. If yon have a ver\^ large one, sa^^ the size of yonr head or bigger, do not send it. It is Lycoperdon gigantenm, and of no interest. CONCLUSION. Onr mnsenm bottles hold a pint and when a crop is found it is usually just as eas}^ to gather enough to fill a bottle as to pick up one or two specimens, and it is far more satisfactory- to me to have ample material to work with. Do not hesitate to send specimens because y-on fear they- are something common. We will take the risk. Some y-ears ago a friend in Philadelphia sent me a box of Geasters half apologiz¬ ing for sending because they- would probably^ prove to be something common. They- are to-day the most interesting Geasters in my- collec¬ tion because no one else has ever sent them nor can I find them de¬ scribed. If y-on know the species, we will state that Lyxoperdon gem- matnm, Ly'coperdon py-riforme. Scleroderma verrncosnm, Geaster liy-g- rometricns and all the large Calvatias are not specially- desired. If y-on do not know them take the risk of their not being “something com¬ mon’’ and pick up any- little puff-ball y-on may- meet. Yonr trouble will be fully- appreciated. Fig. as. Geaster. 58 131— NOTES ON SOME COMMON PLANTS. The following notes are based on determinations made b}’ Bres- adola and Patouillard. Thej" illustrate the necessity of studying our plants principally in relations to the plants of Europe. 182— FAVOEUS EUROP.f:uS. A dozen or more species of P'avolus are credited to this country most of them being described from dried specimens sent to Berkeley and Montague. There are many specimens in our collection from var¬ ious collectors but with the exception of one from Eouisiana they are all referable to the above species. It is certainly the only common species with us. When the plant first develops it is covered with a bright reddish tawny cuticle which peels off or fades out as the plant becomes old. Late in the season we often pick up specimens that are almost white. We venture the assertion that most of our “species” named by Berkeley and Montague are founded on different stages of this same plant. Others we have reasons to believe are on various forms of our common Polyporus arcularius. In our literature the plant is usuall}' called Favolus Canadensis but it is now well established that it does not differ from the European species. 138— PEEUROTUS NIDUEANS. This plant for many years was called in this country Panus dor¬ salis, a reference originally made we believe b}^ Berkeley. That our plant is the same as nidulans of PTies is confirmed by Bresadola, and is so accepted in the recent writings of Peck. Although Schweinitz knew it, the identity' had been lost and credit is due to Morgan for the clew that led to the facts. I think however after carefull}" studying Bose’ figure and description that he really had an unusual form of it, for most of his description applies to the plant and the most striking difference is the short stem in his illustration. The usual form of the plant is broadly sessile; we have a phot¬ ograph of a plant tending towards spathulate; and Peck states “rarely narrowed behind into a short stem-like base.” There is room for a difference of opinion as to the genus to which to refer this plant. The spores are pink and Peck places it in Claudopus. It unquestionably belongs there from Fries’ definition of the H3’porhodii “spores roseae vel rubiginosae. ’ ’ Atkinson describes the spores of H^-porhodii “rose color, pink, flesh or salmon color.” All the species we have noted, Pluteiis and Volvaria, have spores remark- abW uniform in color, deep salmon. To our mind the color of the spores of this species is much closer to those of the white spored series through such connecting species as sapidus and subpahnatus than to the salmon color we associate with the H^^porhodii. We would therefore call it a Pleurotus. The flesh is firm and tenacious and from this consideration the plant is not far out of place in Panus, indeed it is as tough as some common plants general!}' referred to Eentinus. The borderland be¬ tween Panus and Pleurotus, as between Marasmius and Collybia, is oh not sharply defined and as long as we maintain such genera as Panus and Marasmius founded on texture of flesh, so long will we have a number of doubtful reference. Pleurotus nidulans is quite foetid when fresh, a fact that does not seem to be recorded. 184— PANUS RUDIS. This is a very common plant in our woods and also grows in Europe. We have specimens from Mexico and Central America and have seen it growing in Samoa. It has in the past almost exclusively been called Eentinus Lecomtei by American mycologists though a little investigation, or thought, would have shown that it was not probabl}' this plant of Schweinitz. E. Eecomtei has serrate gills, (see Fr. Elen. p. 47 ) ; Panus rudis has entire gills. E. Eecomtei was described by Schweinitz from a specimen sent him from Georgia b}^ Eecomte (see Syn. Car. p. ()8). It is self evi¬ dent that Schweinitz must have frequently collected the common Panus rudis. In our opinion it is the Eentinus strigosus of Schweinitz, (the genus Panus was not established at that time). Fischer in Engler & Prantl has merged the genus Panus into Eentinus from which genus it was originally taken by Fries. Our observations tend to support this for we have in our Southern States a species ‘‘Eentinus” velutinus (teste Bresadola) with entire gills and a very similar plant E. Berterii with finely denticulated gills. These two plants are so much alike that the}^ would probably be mistaken for each other except by a close ob¬ server and yet on a strict adherence to Fries’ definition they must be placed in different genera. Panus rudis is such an abundant species that it is worth inquir¬ ing into as regards its edible qualities. Its substance is tough and it will not prove a favorite for food. However, to flavor gravies and for similar purposes we predict that it will some day come into extensive use. H. I. Miller once wrote me ‘‘When skillet-broiled, the gravy is as good as nuts and raisins.” 18b— FOMES EEUCOPH^US. An almost universal error has been made in the naming of our most common Fomes which is called Fomes applanatus. This species which grows on ever}" log in our country is very rare in Europe and was unknown to Fries. Fomes applanatus which is the common plant in Europe is strangel}' infrequent with us and was generall}" confused with leucophaeus until Morgan noted the distinction and called it ren- iformis. In general appearance the plants are very much alike but applanatus has softer tissue and there is a marked difference in the spores. Applanatus has echinulate .spores, our common .species leuco- phaeus, .smooth spores. The .specimen of leucophaeus in Schweinitz’ herbarium is labeled ‘ ‘fomentarius.” It is not strange that he records fonientarius ‘‘mo.st common on frondo.se trees.” My .specimens of fomentarius are all from the north and east. I believe it does not oc¬ cur about Cincinnati. ()() 136— EXPLANATION OF A CUT. Concerning the cuts in the recent work by Ellen H. Dallas and Caroline A. Burgin, entitled “Ainongthe Mushrooms,” one illustration perhaps needs explanation. When Mrs. Dallas applied to me for phot- ograplis to illustrate the book and requested the photograph of an ama¬ nita breaking from the volva, the best species to have illustrated this would have been Amanita phalloides or Amanita caesarea. Unfortun¬ ately, both of these plants occur but rarely in the vicinity of this city and I had no photograph that I could furnish of either of them. I happened to have however, a photograph of Amanita vaginata as it breaks from the volva, but it needs an explanation Amanita vaginata is a very common species evervuvhere The volva however, is usually deeply buried in the ground and you may collect the plant year after 3’ear abundantly and never see it break from the volva as shown in the illustration It is unusual to find it in the condition that I have photo¬ graphed it and for this reason perhaps the photograph should not have been given as an illustration of “an amanita breaking from its volva.” 137— A PUZZLING LITTLE PLANT. NYGTALIS ASTEROPHORA. Several seasons ago while collecting at Trexlertown, Pa. with my friend Dr. Herbst, we found growing on dead Russulas the little plant figured herewith. It was a clavate body bearing a dense coat of stellate spores on its upper surface. When very young these spores were covered with a thin membrane, which as the spores ripened, broke into fragments and peeled off. Man}" long discussions had Dr. 'Herbst and I regarding the nature of this plant. Dr. Herbst thought it was Nyctalis asterophora and that the spores were those of some parasitic Hypomyces that deformed the plant similar to the way the ^ common Hypomyces Eactifluorum deforms species of Eactarius. Our knowledge of Nyctalis a.sterophora at that time was confined XT to Cooke’s figure (a developed gill-bearing Nyctalis asterophora. . ( Natural size, ) Specimen to which our detormed plants had not the slightest resemblance) and Fries’ statement “the powder cover¬ ing the pileus under the microscope consists of stellate, hexagonal spores. Is it not a parasitic mucor?” I contended that it could not be that plant for the “powder” was not parasitic else the plant would not develop a special membrane to protect it when young. I believed that the spores belonged to the plant and that is was something akin to a gastromycetes. Since those days we have learned a great deal more about the plant and it has puzzled the European mycologists as much as it did us. Specimens sent to Ellis, Patouillard and Bresadola, have fully confirm¬ ed Dr. Herbst’ opinion that the plant is Nyctalis a.sterophora. The ()1 plant such as we found it was described and illustrated b}' most of the ver\’ earliest botanists Micheli, Schaeffer, Bulliard, Dittman, and call¬ ed Agaricus Lycoperdoides, Elvella clavus, Asterophora Eycoperdoides. It was not known in those days that it was a deformed state of a gill bearing plant and Fries first accepted that view in Epic. Syst. (1880-8). The plant rarely develops gills, such as shown in Cooke’s figure, and the ordinary basidiospores of Agarics. That this state must be rare we judge from the statement in the recent Engler & Prantl where these basidiospores are stated to be “smooth and brown’’ on the authority of Karsten. The common form is the little abortive plants we have fig¬ ured bearing a dense coat of stellate spores on the top of the pileus. The nature of these spores was long a disputed question in Europe. Corda, Bonorden and Tulasne contended that they were the spores of a separate parasite, a species of Hypomyces, which grew on the pileus of this parasitic Agaric, and Fries from the quotation we have given was evidently inclined to this view. De Bary has established however and it is now generally accepted in Europe that they are a secondary form of spores of the Agaric called by De Bary chlamydospores. De Bar3"’s po.sition was maintained b}^ demonstration that the hyphae bearing these spores were continuous with the hyphae of the plant. We are surprised that De Bar^’^ did not advance the argument that the plant would not develop a special membrane to protect them when young if the}^ were parasitic. Indeed, this seems to have been over¬ looked by all those engaged in the discussion in Europe, It will prob¬ ably be news to most of our readers that an agaric should, in addition to the usual spores on the gills, bear an entirely different kind of spores on the top of the pileus. Has any one ever seen Nyctalis astero¬ phora in this country with the gills developed? 138— GYROPHRAGMIUM (?) DECIPIENS. We have received through the kindness of Louis A. Greata, a .specimen of the plant called by Prof. Peck, Secotium decipiens. As the genera of these curious plants are now known this .species is a Gyrophragmium or Polyplocium for the plates are arranged in a somewhat lamellate manner, indeed the plant conies very near being an agaric. Some time ago Berkeley described a “Scleroderma’’ from Texas, Scleroderma Texense, which Ma.ssee .since placed in the genus Gyrophragmium. If the Texas species is a Gyrophragmium there is a probability of it being the .same as the Californian but we will have to know more about both before it can be decided. We have alwa^'s claimed that hunting up of old names to re¬ place familiar names in u.se belongs to the antiquarian not the botani.st, and now Worthington G. Smith refers some of the “illustrations of fungi’’ more properly to the “Stone Age.’’ “Some publi.shed plates of fungi, both old and new, are ex¬ tremely bad both in drawing and color; some mycological “artists’’ do not seem to have po.sse.s.sed the most elementary knowledge of drawing, and the illu.strations compare unfavorably even with the art works of palaeolithic men.’’ — Worthington G. Smith, in Journal of Botany. ()2 139— AMENDE HONORABLE. In our pamphlet “Volvae” we questioned the accuracy and value of the Agaric list in “Harkness and Moore’s Catalogue of the Pacific Coast PAingi” and ascribed the list to H. W. Harkness. Mr. Harkuess however, in a conversation with us since, disclaimed all re¬ sponsibility for the Agaric portion of this list, stating that this part was furnished by J. P. Moore, and he thought it was so stated in the preface. We are unable to find reference to this matter in the preface but are glad to relieve Mr. Harkness of the responsibility. We have not however, changed our views concerning the value (?) of this list (the ‘Agaric portion), nor of the list of Minnesota by Johnson, nor of that of Wisconsin by Bundy. It is not a question of ability but rath¬ er lack of experience and of library facilities which has prevented them from correctly determining all the Agarics they have met. 140— NOMENCLATURE. Our friend, Walter Deane, in a private letter expresses the opin¬ ion that the system we have adopted of omitting the author’s name from the name of plants will cause confusion in cases where the same name has been applied to different plants b}- different authors. We think not. If we knew that such was the case at the time of consid¬ ering the plant we would try to clear up the matter in the text, if we did not know it (and it should be our place to know it if we write on the plant) we would hope to so plainly dOvScribe and illustrate the plant under consideration that others could have no trouble in identifying the very plant we have in view. While there is of course, some ground for ambiguity, the facts are that the usual mistakes are errors of de- < termination; errors in describing a plant as new which is not new (the most fruitful source of all synonyms); error in identifying a plant as a species when it is not that species. If we find a plant that we think belongs to Fonies applanatus which in fact does not, how can it help matters to write Persoon’s name after it? Mycologists in this country have been listing and describing “Fonies applanatus Pers.’’ or “Poly- porus applanatus Pers.’’ and yet not one of them has had Fonies ap¬ planatus. What does writing the name “Persoon’’ have to do with such errors and they are the common mistakes that we all make- In¬ stead of being a matter of “jmstice’’ to Persoon it is a rank injustice for it ascribes a plant to him with which he had nothing to do. The facts are that the binomial system of Linnaeus which is even yet so highly lauded, has gone out of use. Botanists are using a trinomial (even a qiiadrinomial in some ca.ses ) and in our opinion not only to no improvement but the greatest hindrance to systematic botany as the direct incentive to nine out of ten of our synonyms. Nobody accuses Fries of ambiguity and yet Fries did not find it necessar}’ in his last and greatest work to write authors’ names after plants. He gave book references and synonyms and in our opinion there only do authors’ names belong. 141— URNULA ORATERIUM IN EUROPE. This species so common with us in the spring is very rare in Europe, It was found in Hungar}" some thirty-five years ago and called by Schulzer von Muggenberg, Peziza adusta. It has since been called Craterium microcrater by Haslinski and transferred to Urnula microcrater by Saccardo. Its recent discovery in France (1898) was thought to be of enough importance, so that Boudier illustrates and describes it (Bull. Soc. Myc. France), and established the s^monymy we have cited In view of the fact that the plant is so common with us, its rarity in Europe is of special interest. 142— SPORE PRINTS. We have received some beautiful spore prints from Geo. E. Morris, No. 84 Applegate St., Waltham, MavSS. and Mr. Morris has favored us with his method of preparing them as follows: — “Good spore prints are due mostly to careful attention to simple details. Be sure to select for spore prints, mushrooms that have no up¬ turned edges, etc. but with edges of gills on the same plane, i. e. flat. Cut off stem carefully as near to gills as possible and have the gills just clear the paper when placed for printing For dark spores any rather rough or unsized white paper will answer. The time necessary for enough spores to fall to make a clear print varies so much that experience Vv^ill be the best guide. I have made prints from Coprinus atramentarius in ten minutes while some others have taken 48 hours To prevent rubbing off spray prints lightly several times, at intervals, using the common artist’s fixative and atomizer, diluting fixative with equal bulk of alcohol. (Fixative may be made with white shellac and alcohol.) Cover mushrooms while printing with tumbler, etc. or bell jar, if at hand. The importance of spore prints has not been appreciated in some quarters I am sure, as in addition to color and size of spores^ the prints give unmistakable facts as to spacing of -gills.” I wrote Mr. Morris that in my opinion any process of prOvServ- ing spores involving a use of a liquid would somewhat change the col¬ or. He replies: — “Very little change takes places in color in fixing spore prints. Sometimes spores are di.sarranged by being floated out of place, and some white spored species are entirely lost by being “absorbed” but in the main fixing has very little damaging effect.” My method of preserving prints is to simply deposit them on white paper (I do not preserve white spores as I see no object in it) and pa.ste the paper on the bottom of a shallow box to prevent rub¬ bing. It has one very serious objection. A little “bug” which lives on spores is apt to be thrown down with the spores and eat the deposit entirely up. This only happens however, in comparatively a few of the deposits. (*>4 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV C. G. LLOYD. No. 7. ClNCirlriATI, O. SEPTEIWBER, 1901. 143— ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF “PUFF BALLS” RECEIVED. We have had a very liberal response to our circular sent out iu June, requesting specimens of “ Puff Ball.” Our thanks are extended to the following for specimens received: L. A. Greata, hos Angeles, Cal., Geaster hygrometricus, var. giganteus, (Note 1), Gyrophrag- mium Delilei (Note 2), Bovista plumbea, hycoperdon gemmatum, Lycoperdon elegans (?). PROF. T. H. MACBRIDK, IOWA. Lycoperdon pusillum, Lycoperdon gemmatum, L3'coperdon as- terospermum, L^'Coperdon pyriforme, Lycoperdon molle, Catastoma circumscissum, Myriostoma coliformis (from Dakota), Bovista plum¬ bea, Geaster saccatus (Note IT), Geaster striatulus (Note 8), Bovista pila, Tulostoma (Note 16), Geaster minimus, Geaster hygrometricus var. giganteus (see Note 1), Bovista lateritia, (from Mexico), Scl¬ eroderma verrucosum (Note 18), Mycenastrum spinulosum (Note 19) Geaster limbatus. ELLA K. HAYES, LAKEWOOD, N. Y. Geaster hygrometricus. CAROLINE A. BURGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA., Lycoperdon gemmatum ( form ) . MINNESOTA BOTANICAL SURVEY. Secotium acuminatum, Catastoma subterraneum, Bovista plum¬ bea, Geaster triplex, Mycenastrum spinulosum, (Note 19), Geaster mammosus, Geaster saccatus, Geaster hygrometricus, Tulostoma (Note 16), Calvatia tabacinum, Geaster fimbriatus. DR. WM. HERBST, TREXLERTOWN, PA., Mitrem^'ces ciniiabarinus (Note 1), Geaster triplex, Geaster mammosus. Scleroderma verrucosum, (Note 18), Scleroderma vulga^e, Bovista pila, Calvatia craniiformis, Geaster saccatus (Note 17), twenty-eight collections of Lj'coperdons (Note 5). 65 PROF, beardsleh. Mitremyces cinnabarinus, from West Virginia, (Note 4), Geaster Bryantii, from Cleveland, O. Bovista plnmbea, Eycoperdon separans, Calvatia elata and five Eycoperdons (Note 5.) STEVE C. STUNTZ, MADISON, WIS. Geaster limbatus (Note 10), Scleroderma vulgare. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, (Note 12), Scleroderma verrucosum (Note 13), Eycoperdon gemmatum. REV. G. BRESADOEA, TIROE. Geaster Schmidelii, Geaster rnfescens, Geaster fornicatus, Geaster minimus (Note 4), Geaster fimbriatus, Geaster tunicatus, Geaster hygrometricus, Geaster pectinatus, Geaster limbatus, Tulos- toma squamosum, Tulostoma Barlse, Bovista tomentosa, Tulostoma mammosum. CAREETON REA, ENGEAND. Geaster fimbriatus, Geaster rnfescens, Geaster limbatus, Geas¬ ter (Sp. undetermined.) E. ROWEEE, SWEDEN. Geaster Kunzei, Geaster rnfescens, Geaster fornicatus, (Note 9), Geaster tenuipes (Note 10.) E. BOUDIER, FRANCE Geaster minimus, Polysaccum pisocarpium (Note 14), Rhizopo- gon rubescens. Geaster rnfescens, Tulostoma squamosum, Geaster pectinatus, Geaster fimbriatus, Octaviania asterosperma, Cyathus cam- panulatus, Tulostoma mammosum, Tulostoma granulatum, H3Mnan- gium monosporum, Rhizopogon provincialis, Eycoperdon echinatum. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum. P. H. ROEFS, CEEMSON COEEEGE, S. C. Calvatia cyathiformis, Eycoperdon separans, Eycoperdon piri- forme, Geaster hygrometricus, Scleroderma flavidum, PoE^saccum pisocarpium, Geaster minimus. Scleroderma bovista (?), Bovistella Ohiensis, Scleroderma Geaster, Eycoperdon several species (Note 5.) P. E. RICKER, ORONO, MAINE. Bovista pila, Eycoperdon several species (Note 5.) B. O. EONGYEAR, MICHIGAN. Geaster minimus, Catastomasubterraneum, Tulostoma (NotelG), Five Eycoperdons (Note 5), Catastoma circumscissum, Eycoperdon pusillum, E^^coperdon citrinum (very ?). E. M. WIECOX, STIEEWATER, OKEAHOMA. Calvatia caelata. MRS. PATTERSON, WASHINGTON, D. C. Geaster radicans (From Florida) (Note 15.) 66 MRS. SAMS, FLORIDA. Scleroderma vulgare, Scleroderma verrucosum (Note 18), Catas- toma Polysaccum crassipes, Geaster hygrometricus. MRS. E. B. BLACKFORD, BOSTON, MASS. Arachnioii album, Scleroderma verrucosum, Globaria (Sp.) Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Lycoperdou gemmatum. MRS. GEO. M. DALLAS, PENNSYLVANIA. Scleroderma (spec.) L^xoperdoii gemmatum, Lycoperdou (two species) (Note 5.) DR. L. HOLLOS, HUNGARY. Geaster triplex, Geaster feiiestratus (Note 6), Geaster rufesceiis, Myriostoma coliformis, Geaster fimbriatus, Geaster hygrometricus, Geaster Schmidelii, Geaster asper (Note 7), Geaster fornicatus, Mycenastrum Corium, Secotium acuminatum, Geaster limbatus, Geas¬ ter striatulus (Note 8), Geaster mammosus, Geaster delicatus, Catas- toma subterraueum (Note 18.) MARY S. WHETSTONE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Two Lycoperdoiis (Note 5.) WM. C. BATES, BOSTON, MASS. Calvatia lilaciiia. PROF. GEO. F. ATKINSON, ITHACA, N. Y. Scleroderma verrucosum (Note 18.) JAMES BIRCH RORER, NEW HAVEN, CONN. Lycoperdou separaus. Scleroderma verrucosum, . (Note 18), Geaster hygrometricus. Scleroderma (Sp.). DR. H. L. true, McCONNELLSVILLE, O. Geaster rufesceiis. FRED J. BRAENDLE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Lycoperdou piriforme, Lycoperdou gemmatum, Bovistella Ohieusis, Scleroderma verrucosum, (Note 18), Arachuioii album. SIMON DAVIS, FALMOUTH. MASS. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Lycoperdou hiemale, Bovista plumbea, Calvatia lilaciiia. N. PATOUILLARD, PARIS, FRANCE. Gyrophragmium Delilei. Specimens received since this ivas in type will be acknowledged in next issue. 67 “Pore-like chambers” of Gyrophragmium. Section of Gyrophragmium Delilei. Specimen from L. A, Greata, California. Fig. :u. Fig. .‘iU. 144— NOTES ON GASTROMYCETES RECEIVED. i46-NoTE J-GEASTER HYGROMETRICUS VAR. GIGANTEUS. The specimens received from L. A. Greata and Prof. Macbride are so much, larger than normal that we think they merit the name var. giganteus. The ac¬ companying illustration is natural size. We think that this large form does not occur in Europe. Fig. 30. Geaster hygrometricus var. giganteus. Specimen from L. A. Greata, California. 147— Note 3— GYROPHRAG¬ MIUM DEEIEEI. This plant (see Myc. Notes, No. 136), according to Patouil- lard, who is familiar with the original plant from Northern Africa and Southern Europe, and than whom there is no better authority, is G3Tophragmium Uelilei “ tout a fait.” It is the identical plant on which the genus was founded. The char¬ acter of Gyrophragmium in the ver\’ recent Engler & Prantl 146— Note 2— GEASTER MINIMUS. Most of our foreign specimens of this species were received un¬ der the name Geaster marginatus. Having studied the foreign plants and looked up Vittadini’s illus¬ tration there is no doubt that it is the same little common plant we have, Geaster minimus, which name is firmly established in this country and has “priority.” “gleba with radial disposed lamellae” is misleading. The tramal plates are lamellate but they are strongly convolute and sinuate. When Berkeley met plants of the genus from South Africa, no doubt misled as to the nature of the plates of Gyrophragmium he founded on them a new genus, Polyplocium, which Fischer in Engler & Prantl characterizes as having ” gleba with pore formed chambers.” These “pore-like” chambers are formed by the sinuosities of the tramal plates as shown in our figures (81 and 82) and there is no structural difference between “Polyplocium inquinans” of South Africa and G3T0- phragmium Delilei of Northern Africa. The principal difference is in the spores, the former having ovate, the latter globose spores. Indeed Berkeley’s illustration of “Polyplocium inquinans” (copied in Engler & Prantl) is a fair representation of our Western plant. Montagne’s figure, we think, is the one at fault. We will not go into detail here regarding its history in American works. It has been called by almost every name but the right one. Originally sent years ago, from California, it was referred to the South African species Polyplocium inquinans. Harkness so records it and in addition describes a new species Polyplocium Californicum based we believe (having seen his specimens) on slender forms of the same plant. It was described from Texas as Scleroderma Texense, afterwards changed to Secotium Texense, and still later to Gyrophragmium Texense. In very recent years it was described as a “ new species,” Secotium decipiens. The plant is fairly frequent in the sand along the Pacific Coast and in the semi-arid regions of the South West. We have been abundantly supplied with specimens through the kindness of E. A. Greata to whom we extend our special thanks- 148— Noth 4— MITREMYCES. It will be noted that we do not follow the recent monographer 'of this genus who dug up an old doubtful name in an obscure French journal to displace a name concerning which there was no doubt, and which had become attached to the genus by eighty years constant use, by such authorities as Fries, Schweinitz, Corda, Berkeley. This sub¬ stitution had not even the merit of being based on antiquarian research, for it had been known, recorded and rejected by such men as Fries. Nees von Esenbeck’s name, Mitremyces “mitre-fungus” is the most appropriate name that can be applied to the plant because the ‘ ‘ mitre- mouth ” is a prominent and peculiar character of the plant; Calostoma “beautiful mouth” is quite indefinite. Nees illustrated the genus well and no question can be raised as to the identity of the plant he had in view. It required half a page of argument in the attempt to show that this was Desvaux’ plant. The only result of such work is to make “ new combinations ” to which the monographer could add his name and we submit, the ends do not justify the means. 149— Note 5— EYCOPERDONS. We are particularly anxious to get all the material we can re¬ garding this genus, though at this writing we have not closely studied it. Hence many plants received are recorded simply as species. 69 Through the kindness of our European correvSpondents we have fairly complete sets of the plants of other Gastromycetes genera, but Lycoperdon being the largest and most difficult we have postponed its study to the last and refrained from asking our foreign friends for specimens. We expect to get sets of European plants in the near future and shall then take up the study of our American material To attempt to work up the American material without having the European species for comparison we feel to be useless. Please do not fail to send us any Eycoperdons you may meet, as above all other Gastrom3^cetes we are particularly anxious to get them. 150— Note 6— GEASTER FENESTRATES. This plant was received under the name Geaster Marchicus, which although a comparatively recent name is un¬ doubtedly the plant that Battara illustra¬ ted (1755) and Batsch illustrated and recorded (1788) under the name Lycoper¬ don fenestratum. As a matter of fact, it is probably the original of Geaster fornicatus being one of the figures that Hudson cites in his conglomerate citation of this species. We would give the name fornicatus however, to another species, (see Note 9) on account of it being universallv so applied by continen¬ tal botanists of Europe. Geaster fenes- tratus is more typically fornicate and really merits the name fornicatus more than does the plant that bears it. 151— Note 7— GEASTER ASPER. We reeeived this plant from Hungary under the name Geaster pseudo-mammosus. It is strongly characterized by the verrucose inner peridium, a feature that is well shown in Michelius’ old plate and is one of the ori¬ ginal Geasters published. The peculiar verrucose inner peridium is also shown in Schmidel's plate, (t 82 Geaster corona- tus &c.) It has been described a number of times as a new speeies, namely, Geas¬ ter Berkeley!, Hassee, Geaster Drum- mondi, Berkeley, Geaster campester Morgan Fig. 34, Geaster asper. Specimen Irom A. P. Morgan, Ohio. Fig. 33. Geaster fenestratus. Specimen from Dr. 1. Hollos, Hungary. 70 152— Note 8— GEAvSTHR STRIATULUvS. This is the plant that was distributed (No. 109) in Ellis’ exsic- cataes which we have examined in Philadelphia, Washington and New York under the name Geaster mamniosus- On noting the specimens, I could not understand how Morgan could have referred this little plant with the rigid incurved peridium to Fries’ Geaster umbilicatus, which is described as having a soft, flaccid peridium and I took the question up with him during a ’recent conversation. He hunted up the original specimens Ellis had sent him under this label and they are unquestionably correctly determined, Geaster umbilicatus, (and they are the only specimens we have ever seen of this plant), but the^^ are not the plants that Ellis distributed under the name mamniosus, in his 3.5. exsiccatae, at least in the three copies Geaster striatuius. that I have examined. Specimen from Dr. Hollos, Hungary. 153— Note 9— GEASTER FORNICATES. If there is any name that is well established by custom it is of this plant. To illustrate we have received it from France, Austria, Hungary and Sweden under the above name and we have seen a dozen or more exsiccatae from Continental Europe, always the same t3’'pical little plant. Rowell tells me it is the most common Geaster in Sweden. We question ver^^ much if it is the original Geaster forni- catus, or indeed, that the original Geaster fornicatus of Hudson can now be estab¬ lished since the author gave such conflict¬ ing citations. The name is so flrmE^ established by use in Continental Europe that it is un¬ wise to attempt to change it. The plant that Massee illustrates under this name, and of which we have received imperfect specimens from England, we have not been able to locate, but it is not, we think, the plant in question. Fig. 5(5. Geaster fornicatus. Specimens from Rev. G. Bresadola, Tirol. ]54_NoTE 10— GEASTER LIMBATUS. While this is supposed to be one of the most common plants of this country, we are unable to reconcile our frequent plant with the specimens of Geaster limbatus received from Europe and we take our common plant to be Geaster rufescens (stipitate form.) ^ We have received what we would call limbatus onl}^ from Mr. Stuntz, of Wisconsin and Professor Macbride, of Iowa. 71 166— Note 11— GEASTER TENUIPES, Fig. 37. Geaster tenuipes. Specimen from L. Rowell, Sweden. We named this plant on receipt Geaster calyculatus on the strength of the description in Rabenhorst’s recent edition, and it is undoubtedly the Geaster calyculatus of that work, but we find it is not the plant Fuckel has illustrated in his cut. The plant is strongly characterized by the ridges on the base of the inner peridium as shown in our illustration. It is doubtful to our mind whether this is the plant of Schmidel (t 37 f 11, 12, 13 and 14) on which Persoon bases his Geaster pectinatus. 15()— Note 12— SCLERODERMA VULGARE VAR. VERRUCOSUM. The common plant that we have in chestnut woods ( see Myc. Notes Fig. 27)of ten called in this country Scleroderma verrucosum is not the one of Europe. It appears to us to be a species distinct from the smooth form of Scleroderma vulgare, but intermediate forms are .said to occur. Fries includes in vulgare all forms with thick, firm peridium. He states “after 20 years study of the numerous forms that occur in the fields of Femsjoe I have little doubt of the limitation of the species. Differences of color, size, superficial markings are of no valued Scleroderma vulgare and its varieties have a thick^ hard peridium; Scleroderma verrucosum has a ihin peridium and is liable to be taken for a Lycoperdon. {^ISotes contmued in next issue.) 72 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BY C. G. LLOYD. No. 8. CINCINNATI, O. NOVEMBER 1901. 157-A.OKlSrOWLEDaMENT OF “PUFF BALLS” RECEIVED. The following specimens have been received since last acknow¬ ledgement, Onr .special thanks are extended to all who have kindly sent specimens. E. J. ARRICK, McCONNELSVILEE, O. Eycoperdon sp. Geaster rufe.scens. HUGO BILGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Geaster Ohien.sis, Lycoperdon two species, Lycoperdon siibin- carnatum. Scleroderma vnlgare var, verrncosum, Calvatia (?), Lycoper don glabelhnn, M. G. BOHN, MIAMISBURG, O. Lycoperdon Cnrti.sii. F. J. BRAENDLE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mitremyces Ravenelii, Scleroderma verrucosiim. Scleroderma vnlgare, L3’coperdon glabellum, L^'coperdon psendo-radicatnm p. t., Calvatia lilacina (?), Calvatia craniiforniis (?). T. S. BRANDEGIiE, SAN DIEGO, CAL. Podaxon Farlowii. C. A. BURGIN, WERNP:RSVILLE, PA. Calvatia craniiforniis, Calvatia cyathiformis, L}’Coperdon geni- niatnm, Lycoperdon species, Lycoperdon coloratnm, Lycoperdon separans, Geaster minimus, Geaster pectinatiis, Calvatia craniiforniis, Lycoperdon echinatiim, Lycoperdon piriforme, GEORGE L. CLARK, NEWTONVILLE, MASS. Lycoperdon genimatiim. S. S. CROSBY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Lycoperdon, two .species. 73 ELLEN M. DALLAvS, PHILADELPHIA PA. Geaster hygrometricus, Geaster saccatiis, Lycoperdon gemma- turn, Lycoperdon seven species. SIMON DAVIS, FALMOUTH, MASS. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Lycoperdon separans. Phallus Ravenelii, Lycoperdon four species, Lycoperdon coloratum, Lycoperdon Curtisii, Scleroderma verrucosum (typical), Lycoperdon Wrightii (?), Geaster hygrometricus, Lycoperdon Turneri (?), Lycoper¬ don Curtisii. E. P. ELY, MONTICELLO, MINN. Lycoperdon two species, Bovista pila, Bovista plumbea var. ovalispora, Secotium acuminatum, Lycoperdon gemmatum, Lycoper¬ don coloratum. M. L. FERNALD, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Lycoperdon gemmatum, Lycoperdon piriforme. GEO. B. FESSENDEN, BOSTON, MASS. Arachnion album, Lycoperdon piriforme, Lycoperdon Curtisii. T. GARDNER, PENN. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Lycoperdon gemmatum, Calvatia cyathiformis. N. M. GLATFELTER, ST. LOUIS, MO. Lycoperdon piriforme (?), Bovistella Ohiensis, Lycoperdon gemmatum. Scleroderma vulgare, Calvatia rubroflava, L^'coperdon separans, Geaster saccatus. Scleroderma verrucosum, Calvatia fragilis, Calvatia craniiformis. L. A. GREATA, LOS ANGELES, CAL. Tulostoma campestre, Gastromycetes undetermined (a new genus ?.) WM. HERBST, TREXLERTOWN, PA. vScleroderma vulgare, var. verrucosum. T. H. MACBRIDE, IOWA. Secotium acuminatum. A. j. mcClatchie, phoenix, ARIZ. Podaxon Farlowii. P. MAGNUS, BERLIN, GERMANY. Lycoperdon hieniale, Lycoperdon piriforme, Lycoperdon turbi- natum, Geaster lageniformis, Bovi.sta plumbea. 74 ED R. MEMMINGER, FEAT ROCK, N. C. Eycoperdon gemmatum, Mitremyces cinnabarinus, Sclero¬ derma (sp.) C. E. MONTGOMERY, PORTSxMOUTH, N. H. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Eycoperdon (8 species), Eycoperdon coloratnm, Bovista plinnbea, Ej^coperdon gemmatnm, Eycoperdon mnscornm. Scleroderma vnlgare, Geaster Schmidelii. C. H. MORRIS. McCONNEESVIEEE, O. Calvatia craniiformis, Calvatia cyathiformis. GEO. E. MORRIS, WAETHAM, MASS. Mitremyces cinnabarinus. Scleroderma verrncosnm. Sclero¬ derma vulgare var. verrucosum, Eycoperdon (two species.) E. H. PAMMEE, AMES, lA. Calvatia craniiformis, Secotium acuminatum, Calvatia cyathi¬ formis, Eycoperdon Curtisii, Calvatia craniiformis. S. B. PARISH, SAN BERNARDINO, CAE. Gyropliragmium Delilei. FEORA W. PATTERSON, WASHINGTON. Eycoperdon calvescens (?). MRS. F. A. PIERCE, BROOKEINE, MASS. Eycoperdon gemmatum, E3^coperdon piriforme, Eycoperdon hirtnni, Eycoperdon Wrightii (?). QUINCY POND, BOSTON, MASS. Scleroderma verrucosum . P. H. ROEFS, MIAMI, FEA. vScleroderma verrucosum, Geaster hygronietricus. JAMES BIRCH RORER, NEW HAYEN, CONN. Bovista pila, Scleroderma (sp. undetermined). MRS. SAMS, NEW SMYRNA, FEA. Polysacciun crassipes, M3Tistoma coliformis, Geaster Br\mntii (?) Scleroderma verrucosum, Geaster nmbilicatus, Geaster lageniforniis, Geaster saccatus, Scleroderma vnlgare. Scleroderma Geaster. F. E. SARGENT, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Eycoperdon two species, E3'Coperdon gemmatum, Scleroderma verrucosum. Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Geoster limbatns, tasiBvo pila. A. D. SELBY, WOOSTER, O. Geaster saccatiis, Lycoperdon piriforme, Lycoperdoii molle, Lycoperdon gemmatum. J. GILBERT SELBY, EGLON, W. Va. Lycoperdon molle, Lycoperdon gemmatum. C. L. SHEARS, WASHINGTON, D. C. Scleroderma vulgare, var. verrucosum, Geaster triplex. Sclero¬ derma verriicosinn, Geaster hygrometricus. WM. STUART, LAFAYETTE, IND. Lycoperdon Cnrtisii. W. N. SUKSDORF, BINGEN, WASHINGTON. Geaster hygrometricus, Geaster delicatus, Bovista plumbea. Scleroderma Geaster, Geaster hygrometricus var. gigantens, Bovista pila, Calvatia bovista, (?), Lycoperdon (sp.), Bovista plumbea, Lyco¬ perdon gemmatum, Hysterangiiim (?), Lycoperdon pussilum, Geaster lageniformis. DR. H. L. TRUE, McCONNELSVILLE, O. L3^coperdon coloratum (?), L^xoperdon separans, Secotiiun acuminatum. L. R. WALDRON, MICH. Geaster triplex, Lycoperdon gemmatum, Calvatia cyathiformis, L3^coperdon separans, Secotiiun acuminatum. Phallus dnplicatus, Calvatia favosa. MARY S. WHETSTONE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. Secotiiun acuminatum, Tiilostoma campestre. Scleroderma vulgare. MRS. EUGENE WRIGHT, HUBBARD LAKE, MICH. Calvatia craniiformis, Bovista pila. E. P., ELY, BROOKLYN, N. Y. Geaster triplex, Geaster lageniformis. C. H. BURGIN, PENN. Geaster pectinatus, Geaster triplex, Geaster minimus. C. L. SHEARS, TAKOMA PARK, MI). Mitrem3’ces Ravenelii. H. H. HUME, LAKE CITY, FLA. Calvatia, (sterile base.) 7() 158— Noth 18— SCLERODERMA VERRUCOSUM. It seems a kind of paradox to call the little smooth species “verrucosum” and this is one of the cases where a plant should be renamed and the old name forgotten. It is a very freciuent species in our coinitr^y widely distributed and fairh' constant as to form and size. Both Bresadola and Patouillard have determined our plant as verrucosum and we have just received specimens of the same plant from Europe so labeled from Patouillard. We cannot go behind such authorities. Though we have never seen Bulliard’s plate we can depend upon it that Patouillard has it right. But we cannot understand how P'ries can cite “Grev. t. 48 bona” for that to our mind is evidently rot this plant but the one we have illustrated Phg. 48. Prof. Ellis always deter¬ mined it S- Bovista and if I am not mistaken he told me that was Cooke’s determination. Prof. Trelease seems to have been the only American author that has it right. It is probably S. Exoperdoides of Schweinitz but the specimen is missing from his collection. Scleroderma verrucosum. 459— Note 44— GEASTER RADICANvS. Our thanks are especialE^ due to Mrs. Patterson of the division of 'Vegetable Pathology, of Washington, for a specimen of this beautiful plant, which was collected on a cedar log in Florida, (the collector’s name not preserved.) It is really the most typically fornicate species we have in this country, but it is not Geaster fornicatus of Europe (as labeled), nor indeed is there any record of its occur¬ rence in Europe. This plant was dis¬ tributed by Ravenel, No. 108 and is we think the same plant that is pre¬ served in Schweinitz’ herbarium under the name Geaster quadrifidum (sup¬ posed in Europe to be a synonym for fornicatus.) All its stations are Southern and we believe it does not occur in our Northern vStates. Fifj. .‘il). Geaster radicans. Specimen from Mrs. Flora Patterson. 160— Note J5— POLYS ACCUM. We do not adopt a recently substituted name Pisolithns for this genus for reasons similar to those offered for not adopting Calostoma (see Note 8.) 161— Note 16— TULOSTOMA. Up to the present time we have been unable to get a clear idea of our native species of Tulostoma. We thought we had our speci¬ mens straightened out but the European determinations have com¬ pletely upset our views. We are still working on the matter and in the meantime are anxious to procure all the material we can relating to the genus. We have in this country a great many more Tulostomas than is generally supposed. Miss Violetta White, of New York, has recently published a paper on the genus, in which she describes seven¬ teen species, only two of which occur in Europe. If this is the case Tulostoma is an exception to all other American genera. 162— Note IT— GEASTER SACCATUS. We think there are two distinct plants indiscriminately known in this country (and both have been so determined at first for me in Europe) as Geaster saccatus. We have been very much puzzled over the matter, but feel that it is now straightened out thanks to advice from Bresadola. Geaster saccatus is the little plant that grows so common over leaf mold in the woods. It is globose in its unexpanded form. The other plant that has been known in our countv as G. saccatus is Geaster lageniformis (see No. 167, Fig. 44) Fiy;. 4:0. Geaster saccatus. 168— Note 18— CATASTOMA CIRCUMSCISSUM, Our thanks are due to B. O. Longyear, of Michigan, for calling attention to a spongy layer shown in our illustra¬ tion, which lies between the outer ,and the inner peridiums. This layer had been entirely overlooked by us and apparently by all who have written on the plant but it is quite distinct not only on all the plants Mr. Longyear sends but in all the collections in our museum. We think it is an overlooked character. Fijr. 41. Catostoma circumscissum, 164— Note Ih— CATASTOMA SUBTERRANEUM. This specimen we received from Hungary under the name Bovista debreceniensis but it is identical with the plant that we have in this country under the name Catastoma subterraneum. We do not know which name has priority not having taken the trouble to look the matter up. For our part we prefer adopting Prof. Peck’s name rather than the uncouth name proposed for it when described in Europe. 78 Kw— Note 20— AIYCENASTRUM vSPIXULOvSUM. The American plant which is coininon in some sections west of the Mississippi has been stated to be the same as Mycenastriim Coriiim, the original species, which Fig. 42. Mycenastrum spinulosum, showing columellae. occurs 111 Europe We think the plants are differ¬ ent. There is a slight difference in the spores and the American plant has distinct colnmellse not pre¬ sent in the other species The fact that there are ever columellae in Mycenastrum is unrecorded as far as we know. The division wall shown in Fig. 42 is not normal. The specimen sec¬ tioned was a ‘ ‘ double specimen. 1()6— Note 24— SCLERODERMA VULGARE VAR. VERRUCOSUM. We present herewith a cut of a plant made from an English specimen. We have received this same plant from vSimon Davis, collected in the clear beach sand at Falmouth, Mass., but it must be rare in our country as we have never received the form from any one else. The more verrucose form without the strong rooting base (see Fig. 2T), is very common in chestnut woods. We have been much puzzled over Scleroderma species and the con¬ clusions to which we are forced are not at all satisfactory to us. This plant should be called vScleroderma verrucosum and a new name given to our figure 8S without regard to old authors. Fig. 43. Scleroderma \'ulgare var. verrucosum. 167— Note 22— GEAvSTER LAGENIFORMIS. A frequent plant, growing around old logs, it has been generally con¬ fused in this country with Geaster saccatus. It is ‘ ‘ saccate ’ ’ but differs from that species in hav¬ ing sharper lobes to the outer peridium, and the unexpanded form has an acute point. It is usual¬ ly of a reddish color, and the outer peridium is often cracked with par¬ allel lines. In this con¬ dition it is called Geaster vittatus by Morgan. Fifr. 44. Geaster lageniftrmis. 168— Note 28— GEASTER MORGANII. This is a common plant with us and lias always figured in American literature as Geaster striatus. What Geaster striatus of Europe is, I do not know, but it is evidently not this plant as it was described as having ‘ ‘ peridium borne on a pedicel 6-7 millimeters long.” Geaster Morganii is the same plant as Geaster lageniformis as to size, shape, color, tex¬ ture, in fact everything, excepting mouth. G. Morganii has a strongly sulcate mouth, G. lageni¬ formis an even mouth. Bresadola considers them Fig. 45. Geaster Morganii. ( exoperidium reeurved.; Fig. 4(>. Geaster Morganii, (exoperidium saccate.) both forms of the same plant (G. lageniformis) but we feel such a difference of mouth worth}^ of distinct name. With the exception of this plant we know no other Geaster with a sulcate mouth that has any form approximating it in the even mouthed series. Usually the specimens of G. Morganii have the exoperidium saccate, though it is no doubt recurved when the plant is perfectl}' ex¬ panded (see Figs 45 and 46.) We take pleasure in naming it for our friend Prof. Mor¬ gan who has done good work with American geasters. 80 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV G. G. L-L-OVD. No. 9. CINCINNATI, O. flPRIli 1902. Fig. 47. Scleroderma Geaster, (with cleavage of peridium.'; (See neit page.) 81 169 -SCLERODERMA G-E ASTER. We have received from Miss Caroline A. Burgin a specimen of Scleroderma Geaster in which the peridium had split into two layers, the inner layer remaining convex, and appearing very much as though it was a separate peridium There is not a word in Fries’ writings to indicate that he ever met this form of the plant. . If he had, the name he selected Scleroderma Geaster, would have been indeed^ most appro¬ priate. With the exception of this accidental splitting of the peridium, Miss Burgin’ s specimen is Scleroderma Geaster in every respect. In Volume 6 of the Journal of Mycology, Massee describes a new genus “Stella” which is a Scleroderma in every particular with the exception that it has two distinct peridia. Though his description would indicate that it was a form of Scleroderma flavida instead of Scleroderma Geaster, the question has suggested itself, has he not met the same form that Miss Burgin has met? The plants on which Massee bases his genus he found among Berkeley’s specimens of “Sclero¬ dermas”. It is passing strange that Berkeley should have overlooked such a characteristic genus as “Stella” is said to be. Massee presents a beautiful picture showing the characters of his genus, but anyone who is an artist can draw a picture. If he will furnish a photo¬ graph showing the inner peridium as a distinct peridium and not a cleavage from the outer peridium we will be more strongly impressed regarding the validity of his genus. It is no doubt a surprise to others as it was to me, to find that Fischer in Engler & Prantl has referred Scleroderma Geaster to a genus Sclerangium, characterized by having two peridia. We are quite familiar with the plant in our collections though we never saw it growing. We have always supposed the plant to have but one peridium, and took up the matter by correspondence with Patouillard. He writes me “Fischer has correctly represented the genus Scleran¬ gium of Feville, characterized by a double peridium. The double peridium exists certainly but the endoperidium can be seen on the ripe specimens only at the moment when it begins dehiscence. This endo¬ peridium shows itself as a thin membrane covering the gleba. Later it is destroyed and falls away in fragments and then the plant has the character with which you are familiar in your dried specimens.” This was all new information to me and I trust Dr. Herbst and others who are fortunate enough to be able to watch the plant ripen will lookout for this feature. It is quite a different structure however, from Massee’ s genus “ Stella” (which Fischer includes in this genus) which is represented as having a thick, firm, persistent endoperidium. 82 170— LYCOPERDON CRUOIATUM. The plant that we have in this country usually known as Lycoper- don separans, is the same as L. cruciatum in Europe Berkeley always so referred the American plant and Patouillard to whom we sent it so refers it. We have forwarded specimens of the European plant to Prof. Peck and he advises us he recognizes its identity with his species (separans) and will use the European name (cruciatum ) in his future writings. Hollos in his recent article refers both names as synonyms of E. marginatum of Vittadini. It must be admitted that Vitta- dini’s figure, while different as to shape, is very suggestive especially as to the frag¬ ments of cortex he shows partly adherent to the margin (hence his name) . But Vitta¬ dini, a most accurate observer and delinea¬ tor, describes the spores as “purpuras- centia” and as our plant never has purple spores we are not ready to admit its re¬ ference to Vittadini’s plant. Had the posi¬ tion been reversed and Vittadini’s descrip¬ tion called for olive spores while our plant had purple spores we would not have attached so much importance to it. It is well known now that the spores of E3^coperdons are probably all olive at early stages of development, and that the only color dis¬ tinction that can be made are species that have spores that finally turn purplish, and species that never do. 171— A STRANGE PHALLOID EGG. Mrs. Hannah Streeter of Philadelphia, has kindly sent me a specimen that at first completely puzzled me. It looked just like an I though it was some new genus of Gastro- mycetes the outer peridium having separated in a circumscissile way and peeled off. I sent it to Patouillard who says it must be the egg state of .some phalloid. On a reexamination of the spores I .should sa}' that there was no question of it, but this does not clear the m^^stery. What phalloid has an egg state resembling an acorn ? Mrs. Streeter has kindly furnished the following notes about the growing plant. “When found, the lower part simulated in form a shallow acorn cup of wood color, with base as flat as a plate, holding a perfectly smooth, nearly round white ball. It gave no evidence of having parted with an outer peridium. The root-like prolongation looked like the tail of a mouse and was about 1 inches long. The plant shrank in drying to about one quarter its size when fresh and the peculiar .sculptured surface is the result of shrivelling.’’ 88 acorn seated in its cup. Fig. 49. Phalloid Egg. s Fig. 48. Lycoperdon cruciatum (The cortex peeling off.) 172— LYOOPERDON PSEUDORADICANS. We have received from F. J. Braendle, Washington, D. C., what seems to us to be a unique species of Lycoperdon. It grew on the “White Moss,’’* and has a peculiar root-like appendage penetrat- ng into the moss. This however, is not a root but is the sterile base of the plant. It illustrates in a striking manner the adaptability of plants, that this species growing on cushions of dense moss should develop its sterile base into a root-like projection which firmly holds the plant in its peculiar habitat. We know of no other species of Lycoperdon in the whole fungus literature, having a sterile base that assumes any similar form. We have another species of Lycoperdon which grows only in moss, Lycoperdon muscorum (see Gastromycetes Genera, Fig 45). This moss (Poly trichum) is loose and the shape of this plant is quite different from L. pseudoradicans but equally adapted to its place of growth. Description: — Peridium globose, contracted at the base, into a long root like projection which is the sterile base of the plant. Cortex persistent thin, covered with short spinules, arranged in fours, and converging at the apex. Columella large, pro¬ minent. Spore mass dark olivaceous brown. Spores small (about 4 me.) minutely roughened, apiculate. Thickness of capillitium threads varying from one to two diameters of spores. In the color of spores, cortex, and large colu¬ mella, this plant is in accord with Lycoperdon piriforme but differs in its peculiar shape, habitat, and larger apiculate spores. It is close to Lycoper¬ don pratense of Europe both internally and exter- nall}' (the cortex spines are not so large however). Bresadola writes me that he would consider it a lapsus of this plant. Its peculiar root-like sterile base seems to me however, to be hereditary and could not have been acquired save from a long line of ancestors growing on its particular habitat. It is without question a distinctive character of the plant, so different that I would consider it entitled to specific rank. Fig. 51. Lycoperdon pseudoradicans. (Section.) Fig. 50. Lycoperdon pseudoradicans. (In situ.) neucobryum glaiicuni. We acknowledge our indebtedne.ss to Mr.s. E. G. Britton for kind¬ ness in naming it. She informs us that “this moss forms dense cushions on the ground in damp woods.” 84 173— BOVISTA AND BOVISTELLA. As will be noted in the systematic portion of our recent pamphlet “The Genera of Gastrom3'cetes’ ’ we propose three subtribes for the Tycoperdeae, viz: Geastrae, Bovistae and Lj'Coperdae, the latter two distinguished from each other by the nature of the peridia and their habits. Bovistae are quite different in several points from Lycoperdae but particularly' in their manner of spore dispersion. When the Bo¬ vistae ripen they break away from their place of growth and are tumbled about by the wind. Nature has provided them with peridia suitable to such a method of spore dispersion. The peridia are firm, parchment-like, elastic, persistent, and their peculiar peridia can be recognized on sight. This nature of peridium is particularly suited to the habits of the plant. As it goes tumbling about, the elasticity of the peridium forces a few spores out with every' ‘ ‘ tumble’ ’ and it is persistent for a long time. Usually^ specimens last during the winter and perhaps even several y^ears. In this vicinity' I have often picked up tumbling specimens of Bovista pila and yet, I have never seen the plant growing. Lycoperdeae when ripe on the other hand do not normally' break away from their place of growth. The peridia are flaccid, and the dispersion of the spores is due largely' to the collapsing of the flaccid peridium, just the reverse of the tribe Bovistae. The genus Bovistella of our view belongs to the subtribe Lycoperdae. The usual distinction of the three genera is as follows : Bovista — Threads separate. Sterile base none. Bovistella — Threads separate, plant with a sterile base. Lycoperdon — Threads proceeding from peridium or columella, plant with or without sterile base. We would characterize the genera as follows : Sub-Tribe Bovistae, — Tuniblers, Threads separate. — Bovista, Sub- Tribe Lycoperdae — [True Puff-Ball). Threads separate — Bovistella. Threads attached — Ly'coperdon. We know of no species of Bovista with a sterile base but it is conceded that it is not a good character to distinguish Lycoperdon from the proposed genus Globaria. Why' then should the sterile base” be the character distinguish Bovista from Bovistella? We would therefore include in Bovistella plants with and without sterile base (as we do in Lycoperdon). The following species on the author¬ ity of Prof. Patouillard is undescribed. When we received it we made no close examination simply judging from its nature that it was a Lycoperdon unknown to me and sent it to Patouillard who ad\ ises me that it is “an undescribed Bovista.” 85 174— BOVISTELLA DEALBATA. Peridiiim globose, thin, dehiscing by a definite small aperture. Exoperidinm a very thin, white, adnate coat, (like a coat of white¬ wash) at first cracking into areas and finally disappearing. Sterile Fig. .>53. Fig. 53. Bovistella dealbata Spores of Bovistella dealbata ( natural size ) . ( Magnified. ) base none. Spore mass brown. Capillitium of separate, slender branching threads. Spores smooth, globose, 4 me., furnished with long (about 12 me.) pedicels. This plant was sent me by >■- W. N. Suksdorf and grew on “dry prairies near Rockland, Washington “ The largest specimens were about one cm. in diameter. It agrees with Bovista as to internal structure but differs as to habits. It does not when ripe break away from its place of growth but remains firmly attached to the soil by a large tap root. All specimens received had this root and most of them had a lump of adhering soil. The our illustration (fig. 52) is not Fig. 54. Capillitium threads of Bovistella dealbata. (Magnified.) specimens had been “pressed” hence as characteristic as we should wish. The plant might be confused with think is clearly distinct by its habits of growth operidium. _ Bovista plumbea but we and very thin ex- “Vittadini’s beautiful and thorough study Monographia Lyco- perdineorum is difiicult to obtain. No library in Hungary has this work, and it is also absent in Vienna and the Berlin museums The \henna University and Berlin Royal Library each has a copy. No wonder that the species established b}' Vittadini were misjudged and that they slowly sink into oblivion.” — Hollos Don’t worrs', the work of no one that is so accurate and beauti¬ ful as \httadini’s will ever “sink into oblivion” no matter how difficult it is to obtain. 8(i 175— 2nd EDITION OF PROF. ATKINSON’S BOOK It is ver}^ gratifying to learn that the demand for Atkinson’s “Mushrooms, edible, poisonous, etc.’’ has exhausted the first edition within a 3"ear and that a second edition has been called for. It is to be hoped that this will stimulate others to work in the same lines and same methods to describe and especially to satisfactorily illustrate the plants they meet. Atkinson’s book covers only a small field. Every worker in mycology could issue a similar book and not touch the field that Atkinson has covered. To further illustrate the many plants that Atkinson has so well illustrated is useless but a pressing need exist for photo illustrations of hundred of plants that he has not met. We gave the first edition a lengthy review (See Myc. Notes, p. 55). We will simply add that in our opinion it is the most creditable book we have on the subject and every one interested 7?itist have it. Price $3.00, Andrus & Church, Ithaca, New York. 176— HYPOCREA (PODOCREA) LLOYDII N. SP. *) By Rev. G. Bresadola. Habitu omnino Cordycipitis ; stroma longe stipita- tum, apice clavula perithecigera, obovato-oblonga, cm. circiter longa, 3 mm. circiter crassa, farcta, prae- ditum ; peritheciis minimis, immersis, subglobosis, ostio- lis punctiformibus prominulis ubique tecta ; stipes farctus; glaber, tereti-tortuosus, albidus, 3 cm. longus, 2 mm. crassus; asci cylindracei, octospori, in articulos 1() soluti, 100 — 100 = 1-5 me.; articuli subcuboideis subglobosi ; 3-1 = 3-3 me. Habitat - ? Cette espece est tres interessante. dyceps, mais fructification de Hypocrea. Aspect de Cor- Fig. 55. Hypocrea Lloydii. ( Natural size ) *) A single specimen of this plant was picked up by me in West Virginia last summer. I made no microscopic examination of it but took it for a Clavaria. Had I taken the trouble to examine it I no doubt would have noted that the spores were in asci hence no relation to a Clavaria. I sent it with a photograph to Rev. G. Bresadola who decided that it is a novelty '* with habit of a Cordyceps and fructification of a Hypocrea.” Should any one meet it again I hope they will carefully observe if it grows parasitic on a tuber or larva. Not knowing at the time I collected it that its relationship woidd indicate such a habitat I carelessly pulled it up without ob-serving this interesting point. — C. G. I,- 87 177— BOVISTELLA AMMOPHILA. In connection with our article on Bovista and Bovistella in this issue we are reminded that the plant called by Leveille, Bovista am- inophila belongs to Bovistella having a strong tap root and a sterile base. Years ago McClatchie collected and distributed “Bovista am- mophila” from Los Angeles, Cal. We have vSonie of his original specimens, and have seen them in various collections under this name. We could never see in what way they differ in the slightest from Bovista plumbea. We wrote to Prof. Patouillard for specimens of ‘ ‘ Bovista ammophila ’ ’ . He was unable to supply one, but writes “Bovista ammophila Lev. is a rare plant, very little known, even in France. It is usually considered here, on the authority of Quelet, as a form with long root of Bovista plumbea, but this is ‘une grosse erreur’ I have studied the original specimen of Leveille in the Museum de Paris and find that it is a Bovistella. It has a hard, rigid tomentose peridium, pedi¬ cellate spores, separate capillitium threads, and a well developed sterile base. We have also in France two other species. ’ ’ “1st, Bovistella radicata Mont., (= Bo¬ vistella Ohiensis Morg.).’’ “2nd, Bovistella paludosa (Lev.) (= Ly- coperdon paludosa Lev. = Calvatia ( ! ! ) palu¬ dosa de Toni in Sacc Sylloge) .” It is safe to say that Bovistella ammophila has never been col¬ lected in this country. Massee gives a kind of caricature cut of this plant (Ann. Bot. Vol. 4, pi. 2, f. 40). We reproduce an illustration from “Roumeguere Champignons” (fig. 395) which from its close resemblance to the pen sketch that Patouillard sent us we are convinced was made from the original specimen of Leveille. 178— A MISNAMED PLANT. Photography was the first work we did with fungi. We knew nothing on the subject of classification but had our plates named by those whom we thought knew. They were distributed as photo¬ gravures. One (No. 7) we sent out as Crucibulum vulgare. We had not worked with the fungi ver}” long until we learned that this was not Crucibulum vulgare, and 3^et this plate has been distributed to ^ hundreds of mycologists and no one has ever called our attention to the error. The plant is (teste Patouillard and Bresadola) Cyathus stercoreus. The view that we presented of the plant, looking directly into the cups might mislead one at first sight. 88 Fig. Bovistella ammophila. (Copied from Roumeguere.) 179— ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPECIMENS RECEIVED SINCE LAST REPORT. Our thanks are extended to the following who have aided us by sending in specimens. The nomenclature is as the specimens were named or as we named them when received. In a few instances our views have since been changed as T. separans which we are now calling h. crucia- tum (.see p. 83). Many Lycoperdons we are unable to name because 1st it is an extensive genus and we have not gotten it clear in our mind, and 2nd many specimens do not afford data for naming with our present knowledge of the genus. We believe that Tycoperdons are characteristic and that when we have once learned them thoroughly we will recognize specimens on sight, but a great deal of work will yet have to be done with them. We are particularly anxious however to get material of this genus. J. C. ARTHUR, LAFAYETTE, IND. Paneolus epimyces. E. BARTHOLOMEW, ROCKPORT, KAS. Cortinarius riniosus, Calvatia caelata, Lactarius insulsus (?), Mucronoporus Pini, Tylostoma Kansensis, Fomes fraxinophilus, Pol- ystictus pergameus. C. E. BESSEY, LINCOLN, NEBR. Lycoperdon (several forms). M. G. BOHN, MIAMISBURG, O. Lycoperdon separans, Bovistella Ohiensis. F. J. BRAENDLE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Lycoperdon piriforme, Mitremyces lutescens, Scleroderma vul- gare, and var. verruco.sum, Scorias spongiosa, Helotium citrinum, Cli- tocybe ectypoides, Fomes sp. CAROLINE A. BURGIN, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Scleroderma Geaster. (See page 82). DR. R. Y. CONVERSE, BROWNSTOWN, IND. Bovistella Ohiensis. L. E. COOK, CINCINNATI. Lycoperdon piriforme. DR. N. M. COOK, MILACA, MINN. Lycoperdon Curtisii, Bo vista plumbea, B. pila. MRS. DALLAS, PHILADELPHIA, PA. Lycoperdon (v' place where a collection of these old specimens i- .stored, crilici.se American botanists becau.se they fail to recognize their plants from the “literature” of Europe is out of the question. While American botanists have done their .share of this kind of work it mu.st not be forgotten that European botanists have done more than their share. American mycology would be in much better position if Berkeley’s work with American plants could be wiped off the slate. While as to Montagne’.s, the3^ are nothing but a set of puzzles that never will be .solved. We hold that “new species” shoidd not be described until specimens have been .submitted for an opinion to .some penson familiar with the plants of Europe and there are to-daj- two men in Europe, Bresadola in Tirol and Patouillard in Paris who.se experience entitles them to be ranked as experts. But even after they have passed on a plant there is no absolute guarantee that the plant will not turn up under another name in some old museum or be found imperfectly' de.scribed or crudely figured in some old literature. (** ) “Hutweiden” — literally Agaric fields. The German word “Hut” hat is commonly applied to a pileus. — (Translator.) 95 more glory even if of short duration, to propound a new species than to seek around among those known and eventually to establish the occurrence of an already described species in a new location.” “I will close this brief introduction with the following motto adopted from the works of Vittadini” : '‘^Melius est notas exactius definire species^ quam novas plerumque incertas proponered’''^ RESUME OF HOLLOS’ WORK. Lack of space prevents us from considering in detail the con¬ clusions reach by Hollos, which however, at this time would be super¬ fluous as we expect to do so successively as we present each plant. It is sufficient for the present to say that over Two Hundred and Thirty described Gastromycetes have been reduced by Hollos to Thirty. With most of these conclusions we are in perfect accord, and have even forestalled many of them in Mycological Notes. In some instances however, we feel Dr. Hollos has been too liberal in his view of the species but this is a subject for future discussion. 181— OUR NEW LIBRARY BUILDING. We have just completed a commodious, modern building located at No. 224 West Court St., Cincinnati, Ohio, which will be exclusive¬ ly devoted to our library and collection. It is four stories high, and one floor (about 80x20 feet) is devoted entirely to specimens. Our specimens of “puff-balls” are contained in boxes made on the basis of the smallest size as a unit. This idea we borrowed from the New York Botanical Garden where we first saw it in operation. For the present we have placed no shelving excepting along the walls but a short calculation shows us that we have now shelf room for 61824 specimens. By putting racks in the center of the room we can double the capacity. So we have abundant room for all the specimens that our friends may favor us with and we hope that every reader of our little pamphlet, will make it his or her business to pick up “puff balls” whenever they notice them and send them in to us It is only by ac¬ cumulation of abundant material from many localities that any thorough work can be done with any branch of natural history. Let every one constitute himself or herself a committee of one to place in the building a complete series of specimens representing all the var¬ ious puff balls that grow in his or her immediate vicinity. (*) (*) It is better to define known species more accurately than to propound new ones that are for the most part uncertain. 96 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. CINCINNATI, O. BY C. G. LLOYD. No. lO. _ SEPTEMBER 1902 182— BOLETUS BETULA. Pileu.s firm, lose, often rimose, By H. C. Beardslee. hemispherical to convex, red tomentose or sqnamn- red or yellowish-red ; flesh firm, yellowish ; tubes adnate, often somewhat depre.ssed around the stipe, dingy yellow or yellowish-green, months rather large ; stipe long, equal or tapering up¬ ward, shagg}^ with rough winged reticnla- lations. Pileus 1% to 3 in. broad, stipes 3-10 in. long. 3-6 in. thick. In woods, ver}^ common on the Ashe¬ ville plateau. Three species of shagg^-stiped Boleti have been described by American M5^cologists. B. Betiila was first described b}' Schweinitz, but although he recorded it as common in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, it does not seem to have been recognized since his day, the shaggy-stiped species which is found quite generall}' in the northern states, having been universally referred to a species later de¬ scribed by Frost as Boletus Russelli. As the}^ are described these species Fig. 57. Boletus Betula. would seem to be fairly distinct. B. Betula (Section young plant.) pileus '‘viscose and shining in wet weather,” the ‘‘stipe attenuated downward,” and the ‘‘tubes yellow.” B. Russelli has the ‘‘pileus drjq tomentose squamulose or fasciculatel}' red pilose,” the ‘‘stipe equal or tapering upward,” and the ‘‘tubes dingy yellow or yellowish-green.” The plant which is abundant on the Asheville Plateau is clearly B. Russelli. It corresponds perfectly with Frost’s excellent descrip¬ tion and with the plant which we have found in Ohio, Illinois, Maine, and New York. Continuous observation of it during the summer however, has convinced us that it is also B. Betula. The pileus is normally dry, but during the continuous rains to which this region is liable during parts of the summer, it takes on the features described by^ Schweinitz. The pileus becomes ‘‘viscose and shining, and develops a set of retic¬ ulating cracks so that it might well be termed ‘‘tesselately rimose.” 97 The stipe is more often as described by Frost, but specimens ma}^ be found which are “attenuated downward/’ This brings the two plants into close coincidence and renders it nearly certain that our common plant is B. Betula. This conclusion is more probable when we remember that the rough shagg^^ stipe was made the important character in the original description and that Schweinitz found his plant common in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Mr. Tloyd has observed Boletus Morgan! in all its stages and considers that it is a state of B. Betula rather than a distinct species.* This would reduce our three species of shaggy stiped Boleti to one and unite them under the oldest and best name. ♦During a collecting season several years ago I had opportunity to study “Boletus Morgani ” When Prof. Peck described Boletus Russelli and Boletus Morgani he apparently did not know of Schweinitz’s specie-, hater in his monograph on the Boleti he distinguished B. Morgani from B Betula, by the bright red alae of the stem. The distinction is of no value. When the plant IS in Its prime the alae are bright colored but they fade out as the plant gets older and assume the uniform dull yellow ascribed to them by .Schweinitz.— hloyd. 98 183— HYPOOREA ALUTACEA. Prof. Atkinson having kindly written me and stated that he thought Hypocrea Lloydii described in last issue of Mycological Notes to be the same as Hypocrea alutacea, we have referred his letter to Rev. Bresadola, who replies as follows : “Re Prof. Atkinson a, peut-etre, raison de consi- derer Hypocrea Rloydii Bres. identique a Hyp. alutacea (Pers.) Je n’ai jamais vu cette derniere espece pour pouvoir les comparer. Comme les Auteurs considerent H. alutacea parasite de Clavana li^ula ou Spathiilaria flavida, j’avais etudie le tissu de ces deux especes et le trouvant assez distinct de celui de H. Rloydii, je I’avais considere comme espece diverse. “Depuis considerant les figures de Hyp. alutacea chez Nees System, etc., Tab. XI, f. 304 et chez Tulasne Selecta Fung. Carp. Vol. HI, tab. IV, f. 1-6, qui re- presentent des specimens evidemment anormaux du Cla- V ina o\\ Spatliu'a?'ia, tandis que votre specimen de Jdyp. fJoydii est tres normal, j’ avals considere votre espece autonomique et pour cela je P avals classee parmi le Hy- pocrea-Podocrea. Les hyphes du tissu de Idyp Lloydii sont plus molles, plus adnexees et moins larges que chez Sp ithufaria flavida et plus larges que chez Clavaria ligula sans y voir des hyphes myceliales. Voila done les raisons de ma determination.” Hypocrea alutacea, (natural size, ) ‘ ‘Si Hypocrea Lloydii est vraiment identique a Hy¬ pocrea alutacea, espece m’etant inconnue comme je I’ai deja dit, je ne crois pas a la nature parasitaire de cette derniere espece.” It will thus be seen that Bresadola accepts the plants as identi¬ cal but throws much new light on the nature of the plant. Hypocrea alutacea is not a parasitic plant as has been usuall}" accepted, but is autonomous. Prof. H. C. Beardslee writes me that he has carefully studied this plant to learn whether it grew parasitic on a tuber or larva. He has never observed a specimen so growing, and decided that it does not grow on such a host. I judge from what Beardslee writes that the plant is not rare with him. Fig, 59, 99 184— LOOKING BACKWARDS. “In my opinion it is the very priority law which defends science against these species manufacturers that grow in mushroom numbers. If a certain species is unknown to a mycologist, i. e., if it is nova species to him, but long before known to science, then it stands to reason that the new name as a matter of course is entirely superfluous and non- meritorious.’ ’ Extract from private letter from Dr. Hollos. We fully agree with all this but are afraid we cannot agree with what constitutes “making a plant known to science.” Simply picking up a plant, calling it something, sticking a specimen away in some collection, “describing” it so that others cannot know it from the de¬ scription, does not make a plant “known to science.” It simply pro¬ poses a puzzle for science to solve. Schweinitz did not make “Bovista Candida” known to science. Fries thought it acceded to Eycoper- don, Sprengel that it was Calvatia gigantea, Morgan that it might be Bovistella Ohiensis. Czerniaiev did not make the genus “Disciseda’ ’ known to science. The species cannot be determined to this day and never will be determined unless some of Czerniaiev’ s plants are found. It is put among the “ungeniigend bekannte Gattungen” in the recent Engler & Prantl. Morgan did make Catasioma known to science He de- vScribed it and illustrated it so that everybody knew it. Hollos knew it and was enabled by that knowledge alone to decide that it w^as the same as the genus Disciseda. I knew it and recognized Schweinitz's “Bovista Candida” as the same. Now it is working backward, like a crawflsh walks, and it is not just to Morgan for Hollos to try to break down Morgan’s work on what he learned from Morgan any more than it would be for me to use what I have learned from Hollos and Morgan and break down both their works and call the plant “Disciseda Candida.” And yet “priority” upholds it, at least for the time being, until some¬ body digs up some other old name. 185— AN INEXCUSABLE BLUNDER. On page 10 of Genera Gastromycetes, and again under fig. 19, page 14, we have written Nidularia striatus forCyathus striatus. This was simply a lapsus pennae. The genus Cyathus is the most frequent genus of Nidulariaceae, and we have some half dozen species in this country. Cyathus striatus is the most common species. We have only one col¬ lection of the genus Nidularia, some specimens kindly sent us by Dr. Herbst. In this connection we trust all our readers will bear in mind that we are particularly anxious to obtain specimens of “bird nest fungi” ; and wall not fail to pick up and send us all that they find. 100 186— ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPECIMENS RECEIVED SINCE LAST REPORT. W e desire to thank each contributor who has sent specimens aiding ns to^ gain a knowledge of the Gastromycetes. W"e feel that we have a fair knowledge now of most of the genera excepting Lyco- perdon and T\dostoma. Their are man}" puzzles in these two genera yet to be solved. In collecting Tycoperdons, please collect abundant¬ ly of the mature forms and a few young to show the cortex. Wdiere T3’coperdons grow it is often as easy to pick up a cigar box full as not. Always dry^ Lycoperdons (simply laying them aside for few days) before sending. Two species of Ty coper don (gemmatum and pyri- forme) are common and not specially desired, if you know them, but everything else particularly we are anxious to get. PROF. AIKEN, CINCINNATI. Elaphomyces decipiens. (Type from Vittadini.) — E. ARNOUED, FRANCE. Calvatia caelata. — MISS BARRETT, JAMAICA. Calvatia (sterile base), Cyathus (unknown to me). Phallus indusiatus, Clathrus columnatus. — H. C. BEARDSEEE, N. C. Mitremyces Ravenelii, Eycoperdon echinatum, Geaster vellereus. Scleroderma Geaster, Mitremyces cinnabarinus, Gea.ster vulgaris? (Cleveland, O.), Eycoperdon, two specimens. — A. S. BERTOEET, CANADA. Polyporus volvatus, Helvella sphae- rospora, Geaster triplex. — E. BETH EE, COEO. Tylostoma subfus- cum, Catastoma subterranea, Bovista phnnbea var. ovalispora, Bovista pila, Geaster minimus.— F. J. BRAENDLE, WE\SHINGTON, D. C. Clavaria pistillaris. — G. BRESADOEA, AUSTRIA. Eycoperdon candidum, E. hiemale, E. umbrinum, E. excipuliforme, E. atropur- pureum, E. pusillum, E. pratensis. — C. E. BROWN, WHSC. Bovista • plumbea, Eycoperdon color atum, Geaster saccatus, Geaster triplex, Tarzetta verruculosa, Eycoperdon gemmatum. Scleroderma verruco- sum, Crucibulum vulgare, Cyathus striatus, Cyathus vernicosus. — E. V. BURKE, CAEIFORNIA. Helvella (Spe ?) . — MISS C. CASTEE, HAWAII. Eycoperdon near gemmatum. — F. CA\"ARA, SICIEY. Arcangelsilla Borziana, Gyrophragmium Delilei. — W. N. CEUTE, N. Y. Cyathus vernicosus, Cyathus stercoreus, Geaster minimus (Ea. ) —CEARA E. CUMMINGS, MASS. Geaster hygro- metricus, Mitremyces cinnabarinus, Eycoperdon pyriforme, Eycoper¬ don (2 species). Scleroderma vulgare var. verrucosum, Eycoperdon gemmatum, Cjmthus striatus, Crucibulum vulgare, Cjmthus Eesueurii. — MRS. GEO. M. DAEEAS, PENN. Eycoperdon pyriforme, E. cru- ciatum, E. gemmatum. Scleroderma verrucosum, Crucibulum vulgare, Geaster hygrometricus. — SIMON DAVIS, MASS. Scleroderma ver¬ rucosum. — E. P. EEY, TEXAS. Secotium (unknown to me), Eyco¬ perdon (2 specimens), Bovistella Ohiensis, Mycenastrum spinulosnm, Cyathus stercoreus ( W^oodbridge, Ct. ), Calvatia rubroflava (WYstville, Ct.), Bovista plumbea (Minn.) — WWI. FAWCETT, JAMAICA. Scleroderma vulgare. — O. E. FISCHER, MICH. Eactarius calceolus, Geaster (new to me). Scleroderma verrucosum. Scleroderma vulgare, 101 isssSxfrs”' 'B-sr pmm.— L. A.GRLAiA,CiAL.. HARRIS, MASS. ILLS. Polystic usversicolon- EUZABETH H Lycoperdon ^'"/“-^hUNGARIA^ Candida. Geaster ^o&foCnds GeaS^doHmbarn Geaster pseudostriatus, Geaster B^vantii -E. M. HOLMES, LONDON, ENG. Pomes obhqus Po y- porus betulinus, Polyporus sulphureus, Daedalea Lyantii, Polystictus abietinus, Polyporus (2 species), Eojystictus ver sicolor, Pleurotus ostreatus. Pomes Exidia 2 soe turn, Stereum purpureum, Hirneola auricula-judas DMdmia (2sp cies), Polyporus adustus, Xylana Poly”°/pha.-A^H^ BAR EADOS M D Poronia oedipus. — FRANK HUNTSMAN, CL > ®hus stercoreus. Polyporus.-T. ICHIMURA, JAPAN. Geaster hygrometricus.-DAVID L. JAMES. M^H. _Marasmuis oreade^. Leii/ites saepiaria, Tylostonia fibrillosuiii. W. JKKYLL, J ArachnLi (new specL).-0. KATZENSTEiy N. C. Lycopfdon cruciatum.-G. LAGERHEIM, SWEDEN Eanopda (So. Amer ) , Scleroderma (Stockholm), Hydnangium Soderstromi (So. Amer 0— T. U. LLOYD, BRITISH COLUMBIA. Rhizopogon, Fomes, Ira- metespini, Lycoperdon ( 2 specimens) , Polyporus, Peziza ( 2 speci¬ mens ) .—JOHN MACOUN, OTTAM^A, CAN. ^yromitra Gyromitra esculenta, Geoglossum. — JAMES MILLER, CINCINNATI, O. > num septentrionalis. — W. S. MOFFATT, ILLS. Lycoper on gem matum, Lycoperdon cruciatum, Lycoperdon coloratum, Geaster T tus, Tylostonia, Bovistaplumbea, Geaster saccatus, Geaster Schmideln, Polyporus cinnabar inns, Geaster triplex, Scleroderma E. MONTGOMERY, N.H. Crucibulum vulgare. — JOHN NELSOls , mammoth cave, KY. Calvatia cyathiformis, Calvatia cranii- formis, Bovistella Ohiensis, Polysaccum crassipes, Fomes lucidus, Fomes graveolens.— TOJI NISHIDA, JAPAN. Lycoperdon pyn- forme, Geaster liygrometricus. — M. PATOUILLARD, FRANCE. Battarea Digueti (gleba of type specimen.)— C. H. PECR^ YORK. Lycoperdon (Sp. ? from Hawaii). — GRF^ENWOOD PIM, IRPXAND. Cyathus vernicosus, Cyathus striatus, Mutinus caninus, Crucibulum vulgare. — C. V. PIPER, WASHINGTON. Lenzites saepiaria, Trametes pini, Ecliinodontium tinctorium, Melanogastei ambiguus, Chlamydopus clavatus, Calvatia caelata, L^^coperdon (2 specimens), Cvathus, Cyathus striatus, Mycenastrum spinulosum, Catastoma circumscissa, Crucibulum vulgare, Polyporus volvatus, T}^^- lostoma minutum. — C. Pk PRESTON AND A. L. DEAN, MASS. Geaster hvgrometricus, Lvcoperdon cruciatum, Lycoperdon pyriforme. — C. B. ROBINSON, NOVA SCOTIA. Geaster liygrometricus.— CARLETON REA, ENGLAND. Geaster fornicatiis.— MRS. SAMS, FLORIDA. Cyathus stercoreus. — E. P. SHELDON, OREGON. Lvcoperdon (species). — JARED G. SMITH, HAWAII. Scleroderma vulgare.— E. B. STERLING, COLO. Phallus impudicus, Calvatia caelata Catastoma subterranea, Secotium acuminatum, Calvatia lila- cina, Lycoperdon Cyathus vernicosus Trametes Trogii, Mycenastrum 102 spinulosum, Scleroderma vulgare, Catastoma circumscissa, Secotium rubiginosum, ? Tylostoma albicans, Tylostoma poculum. :^Ir. Sterling is the most satisfactory collector that is sending in specimens. He collects most abundantly. Hundreds of specimens of Hycenastrum spinulosum, show every variation from a rough scaly plant (no one else has ever sent) to the usual .smooth form. A cigar box full of Tylostoma albicans, exhibits the plant in every form and shows that it has characters the author of the .species never suspected. If every correspondent sent material as abundantly as Mr. Sterling, it would not be long before the last puzzel in relation to American Gastroniycets would be cleared up. — G. K- STONK, MASS. Anthurus borealis (Photographs of Anthurus borealis, Phallus duplicatus, Phallus Ravenellii).— PROF. CHAS. VAN BAMBEKE, BELGIUM. Sclero¬ derma verrucosum, Scleroderma vulgare, Calvatia caelata, Cyathu.s nicosus, Tylostoma mammosum. — F. K. VREELAND, NEW ^lEX- ICO Tylostoma campestre, Tvlostoma mammosum, Cyathus ster- coreus (N J )— H. E. WARNER, WASHINGTON, I). C. Geaster rufescens.— DR. L. H. WATSON, ILLS. Mycenastrum spinulo.sum, Lentinus Berterii, Tylostoma species, Tylostoma fibrillosuni,_vSecotiuni acuminatum, Bovista plumbea. — HOLLIS WEBSTER- Bovista plum- beavar ovalis ( N. H ). Lycoperdon coloratum (Vt). Catastoma circum- scissum (Vt )-MRS. W^HETSTONE, MINN. Cyathus stercoreus, Xylaria. 187— HOW LITTLE WE KNOW. How little we know and how easy it is to be mistaken is strongly impressed on us by a recent experience. ’ Jamaica, what we thought were little “puff balls . The> were t same collection and appeared to us to be the npe and immature speci¬ mens of the same plant. On examination under a iincroscope we noticed little ‘ ‘balls’ ’ wdiich we siippo.sed were peridioles, which would have made the plant an Arachnion. As the genus Araclinioi^ con¬ sists of only one species as really known, namely, A. album, with which we are quite familiar, we readily supposed this was a new species of Arachnion and so wrote Mr. Jekyll. We forwarded specniiens to Prof Patouillard and he advises us that we have two different plai ts^ What we had taken for the mature Arachnion being a Globaria, the swres Vghi naUbv insects, and what we had taken for the young soediiiens^are specimens of the genus Endogone. In a re-exaniination jcunens are spec and breaking them by pressure under a cover ° a s we readi V see our error in this respect. The genus Endogone eas}' it is to be mistaken. 103 188— MORE ABOUT GEASTERS. Geaster saccatus (See Geaster, p. 87) is a common plant in this country. It grows in rich soil in the woods. We state in our pamphlet that the unexpanded plant is globose. This is an error as we learn from our observations in the woods this summer. The unexpanded plant IS acute. This makes it hard to define the difference between ‘ ‘saccatus’ ’ and “lageniformis” . Saccatus is a smaller plant with not as acute segments but this distinction is only comparative and not satisfactory. Geaster triplex has reached me from many collectors this year and I have gathered it abundantly in the woods of Michigan. It usually grows around the roots of trees, and remains for a long time in an unexpanded (acute) form. The freshly opened plants are not reddish-brown but greyish, but they become reddish-brown with age. This plant common with us is seemingly rare in Europe. We do not have it from any foreign collector. Were it as common in Europe as with us, we would think it certainly the original “G- rufescens”. 189— GYROPHRAGMIUM DELILEI. Doubt has been expressed to me (in conversation) regarding the accuracy of statements of page 68 of Myc. Notes regarding the identity of our western plant with Gyrophragmium Delilei of Europe. We welcome such criticisms for we are seeking the truth only, but we never had any question in our mind on the subject as the information was communicated to us by Prof. Patouillard and we have learned to depend implicitly on what he says. In this connection it is wonderful to me, the thorough manner in which both Patouillard and Bresadola have mastered Mycology. Hundreds of specimens have been sent by me to them and ninety-nine instances out of a hundred, their determinations were absolutely iden¬ tical. This is not the result of any accident, it is from the knowledge'- that each has of the sublect. If American mycologists would submit to either of them their supposed “new species’’ before publishing, our literature would not be burdened with so many worthless names. But I am straying away from what I intended to say. We have just received a specimen of Gyrophragmium Delilei from F. Cavara of Sicily and if anyone doubts its identity with our American plant we invite a comparison in our museum. 190— GATHERING PUFF-BALLS. Experience shows that it is very simple to gather good speci¬ mens of “puff balls.’’ First, pick them up abundantly, twenty or more .specimens of each kind, that is if you find them abundantly. Gather them when ripe, and if young ones are growing in the same collection, gather one or two of the young ones and send with the lot. Second, do not send them when you collect them, but spread them out to dry, keeping each kind together of course and send, only when thoroughly dry. Third, send them in a box in such a way that they will not be mashed in the mails, and that each kind will be separate. Every one who receives our pamphlet can send “puffballs” if they want to, for they grow everwhere and now is the season to collect them. 104 NOTICE. — Our readers will note that we _ _ begin a new method in this issue yr-a^-j^r jr ^ ^ illustratious as sepa¬ rate plates. The expensive portion of these publica¬ tions is the cost of the illustrations. We wish to put them in such systematic shape that we will not have to re-issue the illustrations every time we want to review the plant, and we shall therefore issue our future illustrations in the form of consecutively num¬ bered plates. / MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BY O. G. L-LOYD. No. 11. CINCINNATI, O. _ DECEIVIBEH 1902. 191-BOLETUS BETULA and B. RUSSELLL By Prof. W. G. Farrow. With regard to the identity of Boletus Betula Schw. and B. Russelli Frost suggested in Mycological Notes, No. 10, the following note may be of interest. The two species, although resembling one another in habit, can easily be distinguished by the spores, not to men¬ tion other peculiarities. The spores of B . Russelli are characterized b}" having on their surface a series of lines which pass nearly longitu¬ dinally, that is in the direction of the longer axis of the spores. On the other hand, the surface of spores of B. Betula are characterized b}" numerous papillae which are scattered and do not form lines and of which the diameter is greater than the diameter of the lines in B. Russelli. The last named species extends from Northern New Eng¬ land to Eustis, Fla., where it was collected by Prof. Thaxter. I have myself collected it in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. B. Betula has not 3’et been found in New England I believe, but it is not uncommon in North Carolina where it was collected by Curtis and it was also collected b}- Prof. Thaxter in Tennessee. 192— ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SPECIMENS RECEIVED SINCE LAST REPORT. We desire to again thank each contributor who has kindly sent us specimens aiding us to gain a knowledge of the Gastromycetes. It will be noted that we are unable to name a great many speci¬ mens of Eycoperdon that we have received. We feel that very little is known about this genus in this country, and with the exception of a few strongly marked species such as gemmatum, pyriforme, subincar- natuni and cruciatum, we can not name them. We feel now that enough material has accumulated in our museum so that the genus can be worked out, and we shall devote the winter to this work. Another season we hope to have definite ideas on the subject. We shall send the specimens to Patouillard, Bresadola, Hollos, Morgan, Peck, and others who have worked with the Gastrom^xetes and thus find out the different views that are held regarding them. At present there seems to be no uniformit}", particular!}^ in this country. The species that we have always taken for coloratuni, one mycologist takes for caepefornie and another takes for pusilluni. We hope to bring about an agreement of these conflicting views and to reach definite conclusions. It is im¬ possible to do anything with the ‘diteratiire” on the subject. We have the same trouble with the genus Tylostonia. 105 S. M. BAIN, TENN. Eycoperdon gemmatum. — C. H. BAKER, FLA. Scleroderma Geaster, S. viilgare, Eycoperdon cruciatiim, E. ve- latuin, (?j) E. hirtiim, E. (several species), Geaster delicatiis, G. velu- tinus, G. arenarius, G. liygrometricus, G. minimus, G. Drummondii, Fomes Curtisii, Polysaccum crassipes, P. pisocarpium, P. tuberosum. — C. H. BAKER, PA. Eycoperdon cruciatum, E. (3 species), Calvatia cyathiformis, C. craniiformis, Polystictus cinnabarinus. — MISS DOR¬ OTHY A. BALDWIN, ME. Eycoperdon gemmatum, E. (sp. ) — D. D. BALDWIN, HAWAII. Phallus aurantiacus? — REV. J. M. BATES, NEBR. Catastoma circumscissum, C. subterraneum, Eyco¬ perdon cruciatum, E- (2 species), Simblum rubescens, Tylostoma (several species), Calvatia fragilis. — WM. C. BATES, MASS- Ey¬ coperdon pyriforme. — EDITH BELL, NORWOOD, O. Calvatia rubroflava. — A. S. BERTOEET, lEE. Geaster saccatus, Calvatia craniiformis, Eycoperdon gemmatum, E. (several species), Tylostoma. — A. S. BERTOEET, ALA. Calvatia rubroflava, Eycoperdon gem¬ matum, E. cruciatum, Bovistella Ohiensis, Rhizopogon rubescens, Hydnangium reticulatum.— CHAS. E. BESSEY, PIKE’S PEAK, COEO. Calvatia fragilis, Bovista plumbea, var. ovalis, Geaster h}"- grometricus, Eycoperdon (several species). — MARIO BEZZI, ITALY. Scleroderma verrucosum, Geaster hygrometricus, Eycoperdon pusil- lum, E. (2 species), Cyathus (close to stercoreus), Tylostoma mam- mosus. — H. A. BIRD, N. J. Eycoperdon gemmatum, E. cruciatum. Scleroderma verrucosum, Cyathus stercoreus, Calvatia cyathiformis. — MRS. E. B. BLACKFORD, MASS. Mitremyces cinnabarinus. — W. C. BLASDAEE, CAE. Geaster ( new species to me) . — E. E. BOGUE, MICH. Geaster triplex.— F. J. BRAENDEE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Tylostoma fimbriatum, Eycoperdon (several species), E. gemma¬ tum, E. pyriforme, E. furfuraceum, ? Calvatia rubroflava, C. cyathi¬ formis, C. craniiformis, Cyathus stercoreus, Myxomycetes, Eenzites betulina, Polyporus distortus, Eentinus ursinus, Xylaria, Bovistella Ohiensis, Scleroderma vulgare, Catastoma circumscissum, Clitocybe odora, Volvaria (sp.), Coprinus radicans, Trametes (sp.) — C. E. BROWN, Wise. Geaster Schmidelii, G. rufescens, Eycoperdon pul- cherrimum, E- pusillum, E- coloratum, Bovista plumbea, T3dostoma (species). Scleroderma verrucosum, S. bovista, Cyathus striatus. — R. E. BUCHANAN, IOWA. Ej^coperdon gemmatum, E. pyriforme, E. glabellum, E. Curtisii. E. (species), Calvatia hiemale?, Cyathus striatus. Scleroderma verrucosum, S. bovista, S. vulgare. — CARO¬ LINE A. BURGIN, PA. Geaster minimus, G. saccatus, G. hygro¬ metricus, E)^coperdon p^uiforme, E. pulcherrimum, E. hirtum, E. gemmatum, Merulius tremellosus. — HENRY M. CAEDWEEE, TENN. Cantharellus floccosus. — J. H. CAMERON, CANADA. Eycoperdon (species), E. pyriforme, E^^cogala epidendrum, Geaster triplex. — MRS. GEO. M. DALLAS, N. J. Eycoperdon (species). E. cruciatum, E. gemmatum, E. glabellum, E. pyriforme Crucibulum vulgare. — SIMON DAVIS, MASS. Scleroderma bovista, S. verru¬ cosum, S. vulgare, var. verrucosum, Bovista plumbea, Geaster hygro¬ metricus, Iwcoperdon pjTiforme, E. cruciatum, E. Curtisii, E. (several species), Calvatia cyathiformis. — C. W. DAWSON, OHIO. Cyathus B)() stercoreiis, L^^coperdon (several species), L. cruciatum, L. Curtisii, Calvatia cyathiformis, Tylostoma (species), Bulgaria inquinans. — WALTER DEANE, MASS. Lycogala epidendrum. — C. H. DE- METRIO, mo. Lycoperdon gemmatiim, L. Curtisii, L. (2 species), L. cruciatum, Trametes pini, (iatastoma circumscissum, Geaster mam- mosus, G. (new to me), G. Morganii, G. saccatus. Cordyceps mili- taiis, Pterula, Bovistella (new species?), Calvatia rubro-flava. — T. R. DONELLY, CANADA, Mycenastrum spinulosum, Lycoperdon pusil- lum. L. pyriforme Calvatia (new species?). — EDW. M. EHRHORN, B. C. Scleroderma vulgare. — E. P. ELY, MINN. Geaster triplex, G. saccatus, Lycoperdon (2 species), L- pyriforme. Scleroderma, Bo- vista plumbea, B. pila, Lycogala epidendrum. — WM. FAWCETT, JAMAICA. Calvatia cyathiformis, Scleroderma vulgare. — Dk. O. E. FISCHER, MICH. Lycoperdon gemmatum, L. (species). — H. GARMAN, KY. Lycoperdon pyriforme. —Dr. GILLOT, FRANCE. Scleroderma vulgare bearing a plant of Boletus parasiticus. — N. M. GLATFELTER, MO. Geaster velutinus, G. triplex, G. lageniformis? G. saccatus, G. Morganii, Lycoperdon pusillum, ? L. hirtum, L. (sev¬ eral species), L. coloratum, L. molle. L. gemmatum, Scleroderma vulgare, S. verrucosum. S. bovista, Calvatia Lagilis, C. rubroflava, C. craniiformis, Phallus (egg), Bovistella Ohiensis, L^'cogala epidendrum. —ALEX. G. HAMILTON, NEW SOUTH WALES. Mylitta au.s- tralis “native bread” of Australia. — W. HARRIS. JAMAICA. Cy- athus (species unknown to me. — G. U. HAY, CANADA. Lycogala epidendrum, Onygena equina Lycoperdon (species). — P. HENNINGS, GERMANY. Fomes hemileucus ( authentic specimens from various portions of the world, of Cooke’s and Berkeley’s determinations) . — Dr. WM. HERBST, Pa. Geaster minimus.— ROBERT HERB- STREIT, O. Polyporus Pilotae, Calvatia craniiformis. — A. J. HILL, B. C. Lycoperdon gemmatum, L- perlatum, L- pratensis, ?• Bovista ^ pila, Chlorosplenium aeruginosum. — WM. HOLDEN, CINCINNATI, O. Boletus collinitus, Psalliota arvense, Stropharia velutina, Geaster saccatus G. minimus, Lycoperdon cruciatum, Phallus Ravenelii. — Rev. T. C. HORTON, TEXAS. Bovistella Ohiensis.— A. HOW¬ ARD, BARBADOES. Cyathus (species unknown to me), Lycoper¬ don (species unknown to me). — H. H. HUME. FLA. Scleroderma verrucoSum, S. bovista, Geaster hygrometricus G. saccatus var major,? Lycoperdon (two species). — OTTO JAAP, GERMANY. Mutinus caninus, Globaria furfuracea. Sphaerobolus carpobolus, Cyathus ver- nicosus, Lycoperdon (two species), Bovista plumbea. Scleroderma vulgare. — DAVID L. JAMES, MICH. Scleroderma verrucosum, T3dostoma fibrillosum. — CHAS. W. JENKS, MASS. Scleroderma verrucosum, S. vulgare, S. vulgare var. verrucosum, L>"coperdon cru¬ ciatum, L. Curtisii, L. (species). — P. BEVERIDGE KENNEDY, NE\b Calvatia craniiformis ?. — WM. KRUEGER, GERMANY. Ly¬ coperdon (three species), Rhizopogon rubescens, R. luteolus, Cruci- bulum vulgare. — PROF. LAGARDE, FRANCE. L^xoperdon gem¬ matum, L. echinatum. — J. G. LAMISON, OHIO. Merulius incar- natus, Lycogala epidendrum. Xylaria, T^dostoma (species). Dr. LINDAHL, OHIO. Calvatia Bovista, 42l^ in. circum., lbs. lOT weight.— R. B. MACKINTOSH, MASS. Geaster Sclimidelii, G. Morgaiiii, G. hygroinetricus, G. pectinatus, Lycoperdon gemmatiim, Lc. (several species), L. Cnrtisii, L. pyriforme, var tesselatum, R. pyri- forme, Calvatia elata C. cyaihiformis, Scleroderma vulgare var ver- riicosum. — Prof. JOHN MACOUN, CANADA. Geaster triplex, G. velutinus, G. minimus, Bovista pi umbea, Lycoperdon (f3 species) L. caepeforme?, L- pusillum, L. pedicellatum, L. Custisii, L. coloratum, L. gemmatum L. pyriforme, Criicibulum vulgare, Secotium acumina¬ tum, Calvatia c} athiformis— Dr. P. MAGNDS, GERMANY. Lyco¬ perdon pyriforme. — M. MARTINEZ, MEXICO. Geaster Drummon- dii. — CHAS. McILVAINE, MD. Lycoperdon (species), Tylostoma fimbriatum?, Catastoma circumscissum. — T. L. MEAD, FLA. Geas¬ ter delicatus, G. hygrometricus, G. triplex, G. velutinus, G. Drum- mondii, G. saccatus, Cyathus (species new to me), Myriostoma coli- formis, Tylostoma (3 species), Lycoperdon cruciatum, L. pusillum, L. (several species), Scleroderma vulgare, S. verrucosum. Scleroderma Geaster, Catastoma pedicellatum, — S. G. MILNER, MICH. Polypo- rus Schweinitzii P. adustus, P. biformis, P. versicolor, Trametes Peckii, Merulius treniellosus, Fleurotus nidulans, Polystictus hirsutus, P. pergamens, Panus rudis, Favolus Europaeus, Lenzites betulina. — C. E. MONTGOMERY, N. H. Geaster Schmidelii. - WM. L- MOORE, TEXAS. Calvatia cyathiformis, C. craniiformis, a curious Gastromycetes, very different from anything I know, but so immature that I can not even make out its genus. — TOJI NISHIDA, JAPAN. Lycoperdon (three species). Scleroderma verrucosum. — Mrs. M. A. NOBLE, FLA. Geaster hygrometricus, G. triplex, G. saccatus, Po- lysaccum pisocarpium, Myriostoma coliformis, Polyporus, Lycoperdon (species), L- cruciatum. Scleroderma Geaster, Polystictus parvulus, P. cinnamoneous, P. sanguineus, Lenzites saepiaria. Scleroderma vul¬ gare, Peziza (species). — H. PAGE, MASS. Bovista plumbea. B. minor?, Lycoperdon (two species), L. glabellum, L. gemmatum var. hirtum, L. atropurpureum, L. subincarnatum, L. caepeforme, L. furfura- ceum, Lycogala flavofuscurn. Scleroderma bovista. — N. PATOUIL- LARD, FRANCE. Calvatia saccata.— FLORA W. PATTERSON, WASHINGTON, D. C. Cyathus stercoreus.— CHAS. H. PECK, N. Y. Lycoperdon muscorum. — MRS. M. S. PP^RCIVAL, TENN. Lycoperdon pusillum, L. (three species), L. pyriforme, L. gemmatum, L. cruciatum, Bovistella Ohiensis, Scleroderma vulgare, S. verruco¬ sum, Calvatia cyathiformis, Polyporus (unknown to me), Rhizopogon rubevScens. — C. V. PIPER, WASH. Polyporus (unknown to me.) — E. S. PRINCE, MINN. Trametes confragosa, Thelephora anthoce- phala Polystictus conchifer, P. hirsutus Geaster saccatus, G. triplex, Polyporus picipes. — F. M. READER, AUSTRALIA. Tylostoma (close to mammosus), Fuligo, Lycoperdon (four species). — F. L. STE\"ENS, N. C. Hydnum subsquamosum. — ROLLIN H. STEV¬ ENS, COLO. Catastoma circumscissum, Tylostoma (species), Seco- tiuni acuminatum. — J. G. O. TEPPER, AUSTRALIA. Tylostoma (species). Geaster (species). Scleroderma (species). — ROLAND THAXTP)R, FLA. Cauloglossum transversarium. — H. L. TRUE, OHIO. Bovistella Ohiensis, Lycoperdon (species), Secotium acumi- 108 iiatum, Marasmiiis Oreades.— SUSAX TUCKER, WAvSH. Bovista plumbea. — F. J. TYLER, VA. Mitremvces Berkelevii?. — Mrs. A. R. WARNER, X. H. Bovista pila.-H. E. WARNER, MASS. Lycoperdon (species), Geaster h3^grometricus, Bovista plumbea, Thele- phora, Scleroderma verrucosum, S. Geaster. — L. H. WATSON, ILL. Geaster h^^grometricus, Lycoperdon caepeforme, L. pulcherrimum, L. pyriforme, L. (several species), Lj^cogala epidendrum.— G. W. WEB¬ STER, FLA. Lycoperdon cruciatum, L. () species). — L. E. WELD, MICH. L^’coperdon (three species )■ L. pedicellatiim, L. gemmatiim, L. CurtivSii?, Scleroderma verruco.sum, S. bovista, Secotiiim acumina¬ tum?, Calvatia cyathiformis, Bovista pila.— MARY S. WHETSTONE, MINN. Scleroderma vulgare, Lycoperdon pulcherrimum, L. ( species) , Geaster saccatus, G. limbatus, G. triplex, Calvatia c\’athiformis. — HOLLOS WEBSTER, N. H. Lycoperdon gemmatum, L. (species) — WISCONSIN MYC. CLUB, WISC. Lycoperdon elongatum, L. cru¬ ciatum, L. gemmatum, L- caepeforme?, L. pyriforme, L. (species), Lycogala epidendrum, Geaster Schmidelii, G. rufescens, Bovista plum¬ bea, Scleroderma vulgare. — F. K. VREELAND, ME. Lycoperdon muscorum, L. (several species), L- pyriforme, Bovista pila. — L- G- YATES, CAL- Battarea Digueti, Scleroderma? ( new to me, .surely none of the common species. It looks like Polysaccum crassipes but peridioles seem fragile). — T. YOSHINAGA, KOCHI, JAPAN. Sclero¬ derma verrucosum Geaster hygrometricus Cyathus stercoreus ? ( This plant differs slightly from stercoreus, but has similar large globose sporidia. It is ver^^ close to it if not a form). 193-NOTES ON A REVIEW OF THE “GEASTER.” “LI03M takes ever}' occasion to insist on the futility of publish¬ ing authorities as being an unnecessary pandering to the vanity of species makers.” — British Journal of Botany. That is a correct statement of the case and we have not changed our opinion. ‘‘Llo>xl assumes that his determinations and descriptions are absolutely final and it is unnecessary for the student to look further. — Biitish Journal of Botany . There is no such statement in the pamphlet or in print. I am very sorry if I have given any individual such an impression for the statement is certainly far from the fact. On the contrary, no one realizes more than I do that our views of the species are dependent upon the light before us and the information prevalent at the time of publication and also that these views are subject to modification as we subsequently learn more of the subject. In evidence I quote from Mycological Notes, page 93 ; “No rule can be laid down to define a species. It is simply a matter of individual opinion, of individual conviction. Two plants that impress one person as entirel}" distinct, ma}’ appeal to another person as being onl}" forms of the same plant and vice versa. There can be no authority in such matters, we can only defer to the opinions of those who have the largest experience, and I believe the more ex¬ perience one has the more liberal one becomes.” 109 Since the pamphlet appeared my views have changed in refer¬ ence to two or three species. I now know that Geaster “saccatus” is not distinguished by having a globose, unexpanded form as we stated at the time the pamphlet was issued. I believe that G. fimbriatus and G. saccatus are practically the same plant. I am becoming more strongly convinced every day that Bresadola is right and G. Morganii is at the best but a sulcate mouthed form of G. lageniformis. “With the exception of G. Berkeleyi Massee and G. Michelia- nus Smith, the British species have all been found in America.” — British Journal of Botany. This I have never stated but on the contrary, my views as ex¬ pressed are that G. Berkeleyi is a synonym for G. asper and that it is found in America. 194— GUI BONO. Botanical writers who insist on giving personal authorities after the names of plants involve themselves in many curious errors. Es¬ pecially is this so when they try to apply the rules of priority without knowing all the facts. Let us cite an instance. Hudson, an English botanist, called the large, fornicate species of Geaster, which is the only one we have any evidence of occuring in England, Lycoperdon fornicatum. Fries met the little pine-loving species that grows so common in Sweden, and supposing it to be Hudson’s plant, called it by his specific name, Geaster fornicatus. In addition to making this mistake, he drew his description mostly from an inaccurate cut and described it as having a sulcate mouth, a feature possessed by no known fornicate species of Europe. Fries is probably excusable in not knowing that his species was not the same as Hudson’s, but there is no excuse in these modern days, after the matter has all been written up and explained for any person to use such a mongrel citation as “Geaster fornicatus (Hudson) Fries.’’ The names are the same, by reason of errors in the past, but the plants are entirely different. Still some modern authors do not seem to care anything about such facts as these. In their strife for names in keeping with their ideas of priority, it matters little it seems whether the plants are the same or not as long as the name is the same. But as Lycoperdon fornicatum of Hudson is one plant, and Geaster fornicatus of Fries, is another, will somebody tell us what “Geaster fornicatus (Hudson) Fries’’ is? 195— HYPOCREA ALUTACEA. By Prof. W. G. Farlow. Hypocrea alutacea was collected by me at Shelburne, N. H., in September 1891. It grew in ver}^ small quantity under Finns Strobus where was also growing abundantly Clavaria Ligula. Those interested in the determination of this plant should consult Cornu, Note sen 1’ Hypocrea alutacea in Bull. Soc. Bot. France, XXVI, 33, 1879. I have never found the species except in the case just mentioned, and, although the presence of Clavafia Ligula has been noted b}- others in connection with the Hypocrea, I was not able to trace an}' direct con¬ nection between the two. 110 lOfi-GEASTER SACGATUS, form MAJOR. The accompanying figure was issued in our Geastrae pamphlet as an illustration of Geaster lageniformis. At that time we had Bresadola’s authority for so referring it, and supposed that Geaster lageniformis differed from Geaster saccatus in the acute shape of the undeveloped plant. Our observation in the woods this summer has convinced us that Geaster saccatus has an acute undeveloped shape, (see Mycological Notes, page 104 ) and hence find it difficult to present Fig. 60. Geaster saccatus, form major. any characters to distinguish our common little Geaster saccatus from the plant that we illustrated as Geaster lageniformis. We have taken the matter up again by correspondence with Bresadola, and he has reached the conclusion (with which we fully concur) that they are forms of the same plant and should be named Geaster saccatus form major, and Geaster saccatus form minor. “The specimens' you send are all forms of Geaster saccatus. Geaster lageniformis, Vittadini, according to the European specimens is a little different, and is known by the spores 4-5 mic. in diameter and clavate columella, while in your specimens the spores are 3-3l2 mic. and the columella clavate capitated We do not have in our collection any European material of Geaster lageniformis, and in my opinion that species does not occur in this country. 197— GYROPHRAGMIUM DELTLEI from SARDINIA. A letter from Mr. Cavara calls our attention to the fact that we stated that the Gyrophragmium Delilei, which he sent us was collected in Sicily. Such is not the case ; the specimen having come from Sar¬ dinia. The plant is, however, as we stated identical with our western plant. Ill 198— STIPITATE AND SESSILE GEASTERS. With the development of our knowledge of the Geasters some things that were obscure to us at first are readily comprehended. At the time we wrote the pamphlet we could not understand why Geaster rufescens was always included in the “sessile section”, while the mu¬ seum specimens are more or less stipitate. We have received fresh specimens from Mr. Caldwell of Rugby, Tenn. that clearly explain the apparent discrepancy. When the plants are fresh the inner peridia are sessile, but as they dry the fleshy layer draws away from the inner peridium leaving it more or less stipitate. Fig. 61. Geaster minimus. (Young.) Fig. 62. Geaster minimus. (Fresh.) Fig. 63. Geaster minimus. (Dry.) Mr. Holden of this city recently brought us a fine lot of little Geasters that we did not at first recognize. They were sessile, as shown in the accompaning cut. We laid the plants to one side and when they were dried they were discovered to be the typical Geaster minimus, just as we have always known them from our dried speci¬ mens. Geaster minimus is therefore a “sessile species” when fresh, though it is decidedly pedicellate when dry. 199— LYGOPERDON CRUOIATUM=L. MARGINATUM. We contended (see Mycological Notes, p. 88), that Dr. Hollos was wrong in referring L. cruciatum to T. marginatum as the latter is described as having purple spores. Prof. Patouillard writes us that he has studied the original specimen of Vittadini of marginatum and that it is cruciatum as Dr. Hollos claims. This exemplifies one of the beauties of “priority” investigations. Formerly we called the plant T. separans the name known in this country, and then we became convinced and succeeded in convincing Prof. Peck that it was L. cru¬ ciatum of Europe as Berkeley had always called it. Now we have an authoritative statement that it is marginatum of Vittadini. There is no telling when another old-new name may turn up and awaiting its advent we shall continue to call it E. cruciatum. Had Vittadini described the color of the spores as correctly as he depicted the plant, we would however be willing to make another change and call it by the name he gave it. 112 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BV C. G. LLOVD. No. 12. ClflCirlHflTI, O. _ DECBIVIBER 1902. 200.— THE BOVISTAE. We have classed the Bovistae as a subtribe of the Lycoperdeae (.see Genera of Gastromycetes, p. 11). They are the “tumblers” of the puff ball world. They differ essentially from the true Iv3^coperdae in their habits (see Myc. Notes, p. 85). When ripe they break awa}^ from the place of growth and disperse their spores by a method entireh” different from that of the Lycoperdae. Nature has provided them with peridia and capillitia specialh^ suited for this method of .spore dispersion. The Peridium. — The peridia of the genera Bovista and M^^ce- nastrum when 3^oung consist of two la3"ers, an outer thin la3"er called the cortex, and an inner firm layer that is permanent and generally referred to as “the peridium.” In Catastoma the outer peridium is thick. Details regarding the nature of the peridium la3"ers will be found under each species. Color of the Spore Mass. — The immature gleba is white. As it ripens it passes through various shades of olive ( or even 3^ellow) to a dark brownish purple, almost black. If a specimen be collected and dried when it begins to ripen, the gleba will retain to a large ex¬ tent the color it possessed when collected, hence the color of the spore mass of various .specimens as found in collections is of no value in de- .termining the .species. Sterile Base. — All species of Bovistae as far as we know are devoid of a sterile base. For a long time this was the main character used to define the genus. The “Bovista” of Fries’ conception was in brief a puff-ball without a sterile base. According to our present views the absence of sterile base is onl3^ one of the characters of the genus, hence in Bovista of Saccardo, Massee, Fries, we find species that we refer to M3^cenas- trum, Catastoma, Calvatia and even T3Toperdon. Capillitium. — The capillitium of the Bovistae is strongl3’' cha¬ racteristic. It consists of separate, usually branching threads. ^ Each thread is distinct and complete in itself and has no connection with the peridium or columella. Each genus of the Bovistae has its peculiar t3^pe of threads (.see figures in the plates of various species of Bovista, M3xenastrum and Catastoma). In Bovista lateritia (see plate 4, fig. fi,) the threads are very long, slender, branched, interwoven, and it is not possible to float out “separate threads” as can readily be done with most species of the genus. (See note page 7, Gastrom3''cetes Genera). The first impression in examining the threads in this species is that they do not belong to the Bovista type. The threads of Catastoma (see 113 plate 6, fig. 6) have blunt ends and appear as fragments of a contin- nons thread. Whether they are fragments that have broken up or are separate distinct threads we do not know. Reasoning from analogy as concerns the threads of others of the Bovista, and from the fact that we find none that are tapering we are inclined to the latter view. CLASSIFICATION. The Bovistae is composed of three genera, which as far as we know, are entirely distinct and do not shade into each other. The genus Bovista however, does shade into the genera Bovistella and Ty- perdon of the Lycoperdae. Capillitium of separate, much branched threads, with slender pointed branches, . Bovista. Capillitium of separate, entire or few'^branched, threads, bearing spiny points, . . Mycenastruni. Capillitium of short, entire, smooth threads with blunt ends, . . Catastoma. 201— BOVISTA. With a little experience the genus is recognizable on sight by reason of external appearances, the nature of the peridia and the habits of the plants. Of course there are internal features and microscopic conditions that confirm the distinction. There may be it is true, plants with the “Bovista appearance’ ’ outside that have entirely distinct inter¬ nal structure, but we do not know of any. Plants are known that have the same internal structure, but are different in their habits and nature of the peridium, these we call Bovistella (*) (see Myc. Notes, p. 85). The peridium of Bovista is firm, parchment-like, elastic, per¬ sistent. The plant breaks away from the place of growth, and persist tumbling about on the ground for months. There are two layers of the peridium in young plants, the outer very thin and called the cor¬ tex. As the plant ripens the cortex peels off in patches and entirel}' disappears from the perfectly ripe plant. The cortex of most species is smooth, nor does it develop spines as do most species of Tycoperdon. Bovista pila has a smooth cortex when very young. As it grows it becomes somewhat broken up in scales or granules, but it is never “pilose.” The capillitium of Bovista consists of sepai ate threads as shown in our plates. In the mass, these threads are firm and elastic, and thus the spore mass of Bovista can be distinguished by the e3^e from that of other genera of “puff-balls.” This is an adaptation to further the method of spore dispersion of Bovista (cfr. Myc. Notes, p. 85). The spores of most species of Bovista are pedicellate, a few are not. L3'Coperdon pedicellatum is the only gastromyces I know that has trul3^ pedicellate spores and does not belong to Bovista, or the related genus Bovistella. (*) Svstematists who attach importance entirely to structural characters will call them all Bovista. This is simply a question of opinion. I am partial to genera that present features by which I know them as soon as I see them. Acknowledging theoreticalh" the .structural impor¬ tance of the di.stinction, I do not fancy a genus like “Ulocolla” where von have to “sprout the spores” before you can tell it. 114 THE SPECIES OF BOVISTA. We have specimens representative of six species. Bovista pliim- bea, a small plant, common both in this country and Europe; Bovista pila, a large plant frecpient in this country, not in Europe ; Bovista nigrescens, a large plant from Europe which does not grow with us. Of the rare species we have Bovista minor from Ohio ; B. tomentosa from Italy, and B. lateritia from iMexico. Bovista pila and lateritia have spores with none, or very short pedicels ; the remainder have long-pedicellate spores. 202— BOVISTA PLUMBEA. (Plate 1.) Usually globose, or depressed globose, from two to three cm. in diameter. Old specimens from which the cortex has disappeared are somewhat lead color, hence the name. The cortex of a young growing plant is smooth and white. The surface sometimes breaks up into little white granules as it dries ; finally the cortex loosens and shells off entirely from the peridiuni. The peridium is of a lead color, smooth, firm, parchment-like. It opens by a small definite mouth. Spore mass compact, elastic, olivaceous if the specimen is dried before perfect ripening, but when normally ripened dark purplish-brown. Capillitium threads much branched, with slender tapering branches. Spores sub-globose or ovate, smooth, even, 5-6 me. with long pedicels (10-12 me. ) Bovista plumbea is a frec|uent plant in Europe and Northern sections of this countr}^, growing usually in old pastures. It is readily distinguished from our other common species of Bovista (B. pila) by its color, small size, and pedicellate spores. Specimens in our Collection. Maine, H. C. Beardslee. MassaeJiusetis, Simon Davis, G. E. Morris, H. Page, II. . E. Warner. Xew Hampi^hire, C. E. Montgomery, (f) Hollis Webster, (f). Michigan, (very common) C. G. Eloyd. Minnesota, E. P. Ely, (t) Minn. Bot. Survey, Dr. N. M. Cook. Illinois, (near Chicago) H. D. Watson, W. S Moffatt. 11 isconsin, C. E. Brown, Wise. Myc. Club. loica, W. J. Teeters, T. II. Macbride. Colorado, E. Bethel, (f) (Pike’s Peak) Clias. E. Bessey, (t). Oregon, David Griffith. ]VasJiiriglon, \V . N . Suksdorf, Susan Tucker, C. V. Piper. California, E. A. Greata, A. J. McClatchie (labeled ammophila). Ohio, (Cincinnati) A. P. Morgan (t). (Rare here, I have never found it. — C. G.E.) Canada, J. M. Macoim. France, X. Patouillard. Oermang, P. IMagnus, Otto Jaap. From the above it will be noted that Bovista plumbea is of a northern range extending across the continent. Eos Angeles, Cal. and Cincinnati are the only .stations at all Southern. The specimens from C. V. Piper, Washington, are larger and blacker than usual and at first we were disposed to refer them to B. nigrescens, from which however, they differ as to spores. 203— BOVISTA PLUMBEA ( Oval Spored Form ) (Plate 1, Fig. 8.) Morgan describes the spores as oval and states that he has never seen specimens with globose spores. A close examination of the 45 different collections in our Museum shows that most spores are not truly globose but have a tendency to oval form. There is, however, a wide range in this respect, as shown in our microphotograph (plate 1, figures 7 and 8). In only a very few is the shape de- 115 cidedly oval and those are marked with a t in our list of specimens. Morgan suggests that it is B. ovalispora of Massee. We think it is rather B. fulva of the same author (described from immature speci¬ mens) and that B. ovalispora bears the same relations to B. nigres- cens that “B. fulva” does to B. plumbea. 204 -BO VIST A PILA. (Plate 2.) Usually globose, or somewhat plicate at the base, from four to eight cm. in diameter. Old specimens from which the cortex has dis¬ appeared are black or bronzed color. The cortex is early broken into granules which finally disappear, leaving the peridium smooth and shiny. The peridium opens by an irregular torn aperture. Spore mass firm, compact, at first olivaceous, finally dark purplish brown. Capil- litium threads much branched, with short, thick, rigid, tapering branches. Spores globose, even, 4-5 me. in diameter, usually without a pedicel, sometimes with a very short one. Bovista pila is the only large species in this country. In size and general appearance it clo.sely resembles B. nigrescens of Europe and the early mycologists (Schweinitz, Curtis and Berkeley at first) took it for nigrescens. When Berkeley worked over the American Bo vistas for Grevillea (1873) he no doubt noticed the discrepancy in the spores and having a young specimen from Wisconsin he inaccur¬ ately described it as being “finely tomentose.” If he recognized as the same plant the specimen he had previously called B. nigrescens for Tea he made no mention of the fact. When Ellis worked with the plant he evidently noted that it had the same capillitium threads as Bovistella Ohiensis. Cooke had written Ellis that they were the threads of Mycenastrum ((Cooke’s idea of Mycenastrum threads was certainly vague at that time ) . Ellis therefore first called it Mycenastrum Ore- gonense and published it under that name. Afterwards Cooke wrote Ellis that the species was Berkeley’s Bovista pila. Morgan who was in close touch with Ellis thus published it, and since Morgan’s work appeared, the plant has been generally known in this country under this name. If Berkeley had purposely exerted his utmost ingenuity, he could not have selected a more inappropriate name. The plant is never '’■pilose' and when perfectly ripe is the smoothest of the smooth species. Specimens in our Collection. Canada, A. J. Hill. Maine, (obovate form, see plate 2, fig. 5) F. K. Vree- lancl, P. Iv. Ricker. Xew Ham tire, Mrs. A. R. Warner. Masmehmetts. Simon Davis, D. Leroy Sargent. Xew York, C. L. Wakenian. Penrnear in next issue. 213— MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS. Mr. Uranus Hord, an expert microscopist as well as photographer, has installed in the Lloyd library a micro-photographic apparatus. We thus have facilities for making micro-photographs as easily as we can photograph ordinary objects. For the spores of the Gastromycetes we shall adopt a uniform magnification of an even thousand. This has one strong advantage. As a micron is a millionth part of a meter, one thousand microns are equal to a millimeter. Therefore the size of the spores can be readily ascertained by a millimeter scale, each millimeter of the micro-photograph representing a micron of the actual size of the object. Individual observers may vary as to the size of the spores when measured by an eye piece scale, but we cannot see how there can be any error in a process of micro-photography where the instruments that magnify and photograph are always exacth' the same. 12b MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BY O. G. LLOYO. No. 13. CINCINNATI, O. FEBRUAHV 1903. 214— OATASTOMA. The genus Catastoma until the last few years has been confused with Bovista, though it is different. The capillitium threads in Catas¬ toma are short, thick, uniform, almost simple, (see plate 5, fig. 6) widely different from Bovista threads. The exoperidium is not a thin cortex as in Bovista but a thick layer. At niaturit}^ this la3’er breaks in an irregular circumscissal manner, part remains as a cup in the ground, and part remains attached as a kind of cup to the inner peri- dium. The inner peridium with this portion of the exoperidium still attached at the top becomes loose and is rolled over the surface of the ground. It opens by a little mouth opposite th.e portion to which the fragment of the exoperidium is attached, hence the mouth opens in that part of the inner peridium that is the base in the growing plant. With specimens of the loosened plant the top is naturall}” taken for the bottom, and we have shown them in our illustration with the mouth up. We have in this country three species of Catastoma, or rather I think two, for Catastoma circumscissum and Catastoma subterraneum are small and large spored varieties I think of the same species. KEYiTO THE SPECIES. Spores short-pedicellate. , . C. pedicellaUim. Pedicels none or minute, spores 4-5 mic . C. circumscissum. Pedicels none or minute, spores 6-8 mic . C. subterraneum. 215— OATASTOMA PEDICELLATUM. (Plate 7.) Peridium depressed globose from 1-3 cm. in diameter. Spores globose, coarselj^ warted, 8-9 mic. in diameter, with a pedicel 5-7 mic. long. This is our Southern species. We onl}'- have it from Florida but Ravenel distributed it from South Carolina. The exoperidium is thinner than in the two following species and sometimes disappears entirely from the inner peridium. We have a number of specimens with the exoperidium still intact (see plate 7, fig. 6). They were no doubt gathered and dried immature. vSYNONYMS. This plant was distributed by Ravenel (No. 15) as Bovista nigrescens. Its subtropic nature would leave us to infer that it occurs in other tropical countries, but we are unable to identify by the descriptions the names under which it has been probably called as “Bovista.” Specimens in our Collection. Florida, Mrs. Delia Sams, Theo. ly. Mead, C. G. Lloyd. 121 216- CATASTOMA CIROUMSCISSUM. (Plate 6.) Peridium of mature plant usually depressed globose, 1-2 cm. broad, %-l cm. high, with the thick exoperidium remaining as a cup at the base (in reality at the top). In many specimens a spongy layer is found between the inner and outer peridia. Attention was first drawn to this fact by B. O. Longyear (see Myc. Notes, p. 78). This layer is shown on plate 6, fig. 5. Spores globose, 4-5 mic. minutely warted, often with a minute pedicel. This plant usually grows in old pastures or yards, frequently in paths. It absorbs moisture in wet weather and swells up. When dry it becomes smaller and firmer. As a usual thing plants are more depressed, smaller and have smaller spores than the next species. Still, we find in the Western United States large globose specimens with the same small spores, and we find little depressed specimens with large spores, so that without examining the spores the species cannot be told apart. (*) SYNONYMS. The plant was described as Bovista circumscissum by Berkeley. It is called Disciseda circumscissa by Hollos, but as the genus Disciseda is purely a case of “hindsight,” (see Myc. Notes, p. 100) we do not accept it. An examination of Schweinitz’s specimen of Bovista Candida shows it also to be this species and settles what has been a “puzzle plant” for over seventy years. Specimens in our Collection. Vermont, Hollis Webster. Maryland, Chas. Mcllvaine. District of Columbia, Fred. J. Braendle, H. B. Warner. Ohio, C. G. Lloyd. Michigan, B. O. Longyear, C. G. Lloyd. Iowa, T. H. Macbride. Missouri, C. H. Demetrio. Colorado, E. B. Sterling, Rollin H. Stevens (in mountains 9000 feet elevation) , Nebraska, Rev. J. M. Bates. Washington, W. N. Suksdorf, C. V. Piper. 217— OATASTOMA SUBTERRANEUM. (Plate 7.) Peridium usually globose, sometimes depressed, from 2-4 cm. in diameter. Spores globose, 6-8 mic. minutely warted, often with a minute pedicel. The home of this plant is the Middle West. It grows in abun¬ dance in Colorado, and Mr. Bethel informed me it is the common little “puff-ball” in waste places around Denver. It is also found in Hun¬ gary. The only constant difference between it and circumscissum is its larger spores (.see remarks under circumscissum ) . SYNONYMS. Prof. Peck described it as Bovista subterranea. Hazlinsky just previously had described it from Hungary as Globaria debreceniensis. It is compiled in Saccardo- as Bovista debreceniensis. We do not feel like discarding an appropriate name like subterraneum well established in this country, for such an uncouth name as “debreceniensis,” even if that term has a couple of years “priority,” nor do we accept Hollos’ “hindsight” name “Disciseda debreceniensis.” ('“) Massee states “subterranea is simply a form with a more persistent cortex, but in every other respect the two are identical.” Surely plants with spores as shown in our plate 6, fig. 7 and plate 7, fig. 3, are not identical in this respect. Massee’s conclusions were probably reached by examination of Ellis’ Exc. No. 22, labeled subterraneum, but in reality the small spored form and hence circum.scissum. 122 Specimens in our Collection. Washington, W. N. Suksdorf. Colorado, E. Bethel, E. B Sterlinir p k Vreeland. Nebraska, Rev. J. M. Bates. Kansas, E. Bartholomew. IVIinii. Bot. Survey. Michigan, B. O. Eongvear. ' Huvgarg, Dr. Hollos. 218— MITREMYCES. This genus having dry spores, but no capillitium, we have placed in the Tribe Sclerodernieae ( see Genera of Gastroin3'cetes, p. 11). It has little in common with Scleroderma, and is placed herein for convenience (see notch c.) It is a peculiar genus, none being stranger in the entire puff-ball family, presenting, as it does, many characters possessed by no other genus. One of the species has the peridium red, while all of the American species have mouths of peridium red. “ Red” puff-balls are so exceptional that the}^ are of particular interest. In addition, young plants of the most common species are enveloped in a thick gelatinous, volva-like peridium; no other genus has this character. THE GELATINOUS EXOPERIDIUM. The manner in which the gelatinous layer separates from the inner peridium has been variously described and illustrated. I think the conclusions are all based on observation, but concern different species. In fact, I believe the manner of separation of the gelatinous la3'er is peculiar in and to each of our three species. Bose, who was one of the first to describe and illustrate the plant, says in substance: “The globose head is covered with a glutinous volva, which opens at the base in eight or nine divisions, which falls off at maturit3'.” His illustration shows the la3’er as a kind of cap, free and lobed at the base.'-' Bose’s cut is no doubt a crude representation of any species, but , is probably based on Ravenelii or lutescens. Prof. Beardslee writes me: “Mitremyces Ravenelii, as I have found it in a dozen stations at Asheville, has no gelatinous coat, but is alwa3’'S covered with a scurv3' coat which breaks awa3^ from the base first, the last piece separating like a cap from the apex.” Hitchcock states: “It (the exoperidium) opens at the top, beginning to separate into numerous divisions or ra3"s, like the petals of a flower.” This refers to Mitrem3xes lutescens onl3', the remains of these dried “rays” being shown in our illustration (plate 9, fig. 1). I have had an opportunit3^ to observe the separation of the exoperidium of Mitrem3xes cinnabarinus, which however, no wa3' resembles either of these descriptions. Nor does Burnap’s description (Bot. Gazette, 1897), and his figure (4), in 1113^ opinion, correctl3' present it. The exoperidium is not, as seems to be the general supposition, a uniform gelatinous la3'er like the volva of a phalloid. It appears to be of two la3'ers, a ver3' thin inner cartilaginous la3'er (bright red in M. cinnabarinus), to which is attached a thick gelatinous outer la3^er. *It is probably in reference to this that Nees von Esenbeck selected the name Mitremyces. viz., mitre fungus, comparing this cap to the head-dress known as a mitre. I formerly thought it referred to the rai.sed mouth with its “mitred” grooves. (See Myc. Note.s, p. (>9). 128 The separation of the exoperidium is effected by the cartilaginous layer breaking into areas and curling m. The separation is caused, in my opinion, by the fact that the cells of the thick gelatinous portion swell and expand by the absorption of water, while those of the inner layer do not, hence rupture occurs. At first it causes a “buckling” of the layer shown in plate 8, fig. 2. Next, the layer is torn by the swelling of the outer gelatinous portion without a corresponding expansion of the inner (see plate 8, fig. 3). Finally the pieces curl inward and fall off. Frequently we find a mass of these gelatinous fragments of the exoperidium on the ground encircling a plant. They appear like a cluster of “fish eggs,” only the nuclei are red, instead of black.* THE GENERIC NAME. Nees von Fsenbeck illustrated and called this plant Mitremyces in 1816. For over seventy years his name was accepted and used, practically by all mycologists the world over. A monographer wishing to make a change and attach his name to nine of the ten species he considers, digs up from an obscure French journal a doubtful name ( Calostoma) , known but rejected by such men as Fries and Schweinitz, and attempts to change the accepted usage of seventy years. Others may follow if they wish, but not I. The genus Husseya of Berkeley, as clearly shown by Massee, is not different. TtlE MOUTHS OF MITREMYCES. Among the Gastromycetes, the mouths of all species of Mitre¬ myces, as far as we know, are peculiar to this genus. They are raised, rayed, and open by longitudinal slits along the rays. In addition, whatever may be the color of the peridium, the mouths of all the American species are red. A good idea of their appearance can be obtained from our plates, also from Morgan’s figures. They are very poorly and inaccurately shown in Massee’ s plates. THE SPORES. No other genus has, to my knowledge, spores colored like Mitremyces. They are pale ochraceous, or sulphur color. In shape they are either globose or elliptical. There are no capillitia, but usually remains of hyphae tissue are observed mixed with the spores, (shown in plate 9, fig. 6). In this respect alone the genus approxi¬ mates Scleroderma. THE SPORE SAC. The spores are contained in a separate membrane or sac, at first lining the endoperidium. As the plant matures this spore-sac con¬ tracts, forcing the spores through the slits of the rayed mouth. So *^rassee states “the structure is in evep^ respect homologonous with the peridium in the rhalloideae, but differs in being entirely deliquescent at an early period ; hence no trace of its presence is to be seen in mature specimens.” The exoperidium no more separates by deliques¬ cence than does the cortex of a Bovista. It is a mechanical action of absorption of water by a gelatinous substance, but it does not deliquesce, and the nse of this word in connection with the phenomenon is misleading. 124 far as I know this method of spore dispersion noted and described b}" Hitchcock nearly eighty years ago, is peculiar to the genus. The series of photographs by Prof. Beardslee, (plate 8, fig. 7), show this .spore-sac in various states of contraction.* THE ROOTING STRANDS. Another feature unknown to me in other genera, is the long, thick bundle of root-like strands by which the peridium is attached to the soil. These strands are somewhat gelatinous when fresh, but dry, hard and rigid. They are shown in all our photographs of the various species. GLASSIFICATION. The original species was earl}^ figured and de.scribed from this country. The genus has since been found in India, Java, Australia and various portions of the world, but it does not occur in Europe. We have in our collection .specimens onl}’ of the American forms. Our native species were ver}' much confused and but little known until a 3’oung man b}^ the name of Burnap, one of Prof. Farlow’s students, straightened them out in 1897. KEY TO THE SPECIES. Spores globo.se . M. lutescens. Spores elliptical . . Endoperidium red . M. cinnabarinus. Mouth only red . M, Ravenelii. 219— MITREMYCES LUTESCENS. I Plate it). Rooting strands long, compact, yellowish. Exoperidium light 3’ellowish, rough externalh' and but .slightl}’ (if at all) gelatinous,! ‘separating b}'' splitting into irregular segments, which remain (par- tiall}”) at the base of the endoperidium like the petals of a flower. Endoperidium pale orange ^^ellowish. smooth. Raj^ed mouth bright red when fresh, fading out in old specimens. Spores globo.se, 1' verrucose, 7-8 mic. This species, I judge from plants that have reached me, to be the rarest of all. It is readil}" distinguished from all other American species b}" its globose spores yellowish peridium. Burnap has .seen specimens from Alabama and West \"irginia. We have them onh' from Tennessee and District of Columbia. Prof. Shear tells me he finds it to be the common species about Washington, D. C. *Ma.ssee note.s that the sac .sonietime.s protrudes through the slits of the mouth. We think this is unu.sual, as we have never seen an example, although we have collected and handled hun¬ dreds of specimens. fThese conclusions about the exoperidium are derived from the dried specimen. I have never seen the plant growing. Possibly my opinion as to the slightly gelatinous nature of this membrane is in error, p Schweinitz ( tS22), illustrated Witremyces lutescens with pi' and well shows other characters of the plant, and it would appear from his published work that he knew cinna¬ barinus. It is therefore strange that the specimens in his collection to-day, as well as the speci¬ mens he sent Berkeley, labeled “ lutescens ” are cinnabarinus. Corda ( l!S4b, pointed out the spore distinction between lutescens and cinnabarinus, but put them in two genera. Massee, misled by Schweinitz’s misnamed specimens ( USSS), states that lutescens is the young condition of cinnaba¬ rinus, while Morgan (who only had cinnabarinus) (188!(), states that “they are evidently the same species.” SYNONYMS. Schweinitz, it would appear from his publication, had a clear idea of this species, but the specimens he left are ciniiabarinus. Morgan and Massee confused lutescens and ciniiabarinus in their work. Specimens in our Collection. Washmgton, D. C., F. J, Braendle, C. F. Shear; Tennessee, H. M. Caldwell. 220— M[TREMYOE3S OINNABARINUS. (Plate 8). Rooting strands long, compact, dark when dry. Exoperidium bright red, smooth internally, the outer layer thick gelatinous when fresh. The method of separation is explained in detail on page 128. Endoperidium and rayed mouth, bright red when fresh, partially fading in old specimens. Spores elliptic-oblong, punctate-sculptured, varying much as to size in specimens from different localities, and even in the same speci¬ men. West Virginia specimens 6-8x10-14 mic. Massachusetts specimens 6-8 x 12-20 mic. This is our most common and widely distributed species. Its home is the Alleghanies, but it grows as far east as Massachusetts and as far south (probably) as Florida.* It does not occur in the Western States. SYNONYMS. This plant has been called Scleroderma calostoma, Calostoma cinnabarinum, Lycoperdon heterogeneum, Fycoperdon calostoma, Mitremyces heterogeneus, Gyropodium coccineum, and was distributed by both Ellis and Ravenel as Mitre¬ myces lutescens and was so called by Morgan. Specimens in our Collection. Massadnisetts, Mrs. E. B. Blackford, Geo. E. Morris, Hollis Webster, Clara E. Cummings. Pennsylvania, Chas. Mcllvaine, (Dr. Herbst has found it, but I have none of his specimens). West Virginia, H. C. Beardslee, C. G. Floyd (abund¬ ant at Eglon, W. Va., near the summit of the Alleghanies). Georgia, A. S. Bertolet. North Carolina, H. C. Beardslee, Ed. R. Menninger, A. G. Wetherby. 221— MITREMYCES RAVENELII. Rooting strands long, slender. f Exoperidium breaking into very small flakes, which usually dry up and remain attached to the inner peridium.J Endoperidium dark brown when dry (**), usually rough with adnate scales, remains of the exoperidium. Rayed mouth bright red. Spores elliptic-oblong, slightly sculptured, (ft)) varying much as to size 5-8 x 10-15 mic. This plant is close to ciniiabarinus, from which it may be known by the small persistent exoperidium scales and by not having a red endoperidium. It is widely distributed, but not so abundant as ciniiabarinus. *\Vhile in Florida several winters ago I was asked by a native if there was a “red puff¬ ball.” He .said he had seen it, but his neighbors thought he was mistaken. (t). Berkeley makes the “short” rooting strands a feature of the species. It is evident his specimens were not perfect. (t). At least in our herbarium specimens, this is a very constant character. (*='b. On macerating a specimen the peridium becomes lighter color, and is, I think, ochra- ceous when fresh. (tt). They hav’e been de.scribed as smooth. Young spores, both of this species and cinna- barinus are relatively smooth, but both are decidedly sculptured when ripe. 126 •Specimens in our Collection. Pennsylvania, Dr. W. Herbst. District of Columbia, F. J. Braendle, C. D. Shear. lennessee, H. ]\r. Caldwell. JSorth Carolina, ii. C. Beardslee, Hannah C. Ander.son. 222— MITRBMYOES RAVENELII VAR. MINOR. I Plate 9). We have received a beautiful lot of these little specinieii.s from J- T3der, collected at Fort Hthan Allen, Virginia. Our first impres¬ sions led to the conclusion that they were distinct from either of the three species with which we were familiar, but Prof. Patouillard, to whom we sent specimens, considers them a form of Ravenelii. While in general appearance the plant is very different, still I can see no marked point of distinction on which to base a .species. The\' are much smaller; the peridium much smoother; the rooting strands ver}' much less developed and not broadly attached to the peridium, but rather separating and forming a kind of cup as shown in plate 9, fig. 7. In addition, the spores are much smaller, and the long axis in .some is so relatively" short that some spores are almost globose.* It appears to us that this must be the same plant that Berkeley has called M. Ravenelii var. minor (Grevillea, vol. 2, p. 61). In deference to Patouillard’ s opinion we consider them a variety of Ravenelii, but we shall not be surprised if it be finally" shown that they" are entitled to specific rank. Specimens in our Collection. Viiyinia, F. J. Tyler. 223— A DIFFE3RENCE OF OPINION. “ Bovista dealbata Lloyd, is in my opinion, identical with B. tomentosa Vitt. (B. minor Morgan). I beg that y"OU will examine the spores of the ripe specimen, magnified 750 diameters, and y"ou will find them very finely- punctate.” Extract from private letter from Dr. Hollos. This plant by- another eminent European mycologist has been referred to B. plumbea, and by- still another is considered a distinct species. We have here three conflicting opinions regarding the very- same plant, thus indicating that it is very- easy- for different workers to differ as to the identity^ of plants. It is this difference of views that makes the study- of my-cology- so interesting. If everybody- thought alike and the plants were all worked up, the study- would lose much of its fa.scination. No exception can be taken by- any-one because others differ as to classification of any- particular plant. We are aiming both to describe and illustrate the plants by photographic process in order that others may- recognise them. Our object is to issue a work that will enable readers to know the plants concerned. If we succeed in doing this, others are welcome to disagree with us as to the name the plants should bear. Let us be liberal enough to grant every- man a right to his own opinion. (*). On our first examination of the spores we thought they were globose, and that it was ptobably Mitremyces Berkeleyii, and as far as external appearance and size go, is well repre¬ sented in Massee’s figure of that species. We forwarded specimens with a query to the herba¬ rium at Kew, and our opinion was confirmed. As on further examination the spores proved not to be globose as shown in our microphotograph ( plate i>, fig. 8), if the plant is M. Berkeleyii, the spores of that species are not correctly described or varv' as to shape. 127 •v^-^S.'^ >yK;f, IcUf^hijZ ^ p'hi2^-^nJ24j2, ^ [ ■^\ r>^' 'lY ^fV^' ^g5 C ^ 224— A LETTER FROM THE « ORIENT. As evidence of the wide-spreading in¬ terest that is now being taken in the study of Gastroniycetes, we reproduce herewith a letter received from Mr. T. Yoshinaga, of Japan. Many of our readers will be interested in Mr. Yoshinaga’ s letter and the information that he gives. It is an evidence of the rapid strides in all directions, and especially in science, that our young nation of ^ the Orient is getting quite proficient in botanical matters. A regu¬ lar botanical journal is issued, which is received at the Lloyd Library, and is printed very much as the accompanying fac-simile, and is, no doubt, full of valuable information. We have a complete set of the publication, some ten or fifteen volumes, and all who wish to read it can have access to it at our library. You will, no doubt, be interested in the information as given by Mr. Yoshinaga in his communica¬ tion of Jul}" 18th, reproduced herewith. 225— GEASTER FORNICATUS, from this country. We have received from Mr. W. H. Long, Jr., Denton, Texas, specimens of what we consider the true Geaster fornicatus of England, as illustrated in Fig. 55, page 29, of the Geastrae pamphlet. We think this plant occurs but very rarel}’ in this country, and that prob¬ ably this is its first collection. We have seen no specimens of it in the Eastern collections, nor has it ever reached us from any other cor¬ respondent. The records of “Geaster fornicatus” from the Eastern states are, we think, of a very different plant, which we have called Geaster coronatus in the pamphlet. 128 226— RAFINESQUE’S “PIPE DREAM.” In looking over some old journals, I ran across Rafinesque’s announcement of his book on fungus. While I feel that M^xolog}' is to be congratulated on the fact that the book was never issued, I reproduce the “announcement” as a curiosity. It was ver}^ “prior” (1808), and I realize that I thus place for ready reference material for the modern “priorist” busily engaged in digging up old names for new combinations to which may be affixed their own. In our opinion, the modern priorist, who cannot with the aid of a vivid imagination, find herein a new combination to supplant almost any name in use now, will not be very enterprising. “ The second work I mentioned will be named, an essa}" on the natural history of the mushrooms or fungusses of the United States of America. It is intended to be a complete treatise of all the plants of that class which have been discovered in the United States, in which I shall consider them as forming a distinct class from the other acoty- ledonous plants, instead of only a tribe; and the different divisions of Persoon, in his S3aiopsis fungorum, will be considered b}' me as so many different orders or tribes. I shall describe in this work nearly eight hundred and fifty species or varieties of American mushrooms, of which one-half will be new orders, and most of them elucidated b}^ plates; name all the places and situations where they are found in the United States, and give the complete and accurate description and histor}" of the new ones, not forgetting to enlarge on their fructifica¬ tion, principall}^ for the new genusses, of which I shall have eighteen at least, besides the three already described in the annexed essay. Of these I will give 3^011 the names, etc., viz.: Astr3’cum, (multifidum, quinquefidum, dimidiatum, etc.), this genus belongs to the tribe of the licoperdoideous; it does not open, and the seeds are dispersed in the centre. In New Jerse3’' and Penn. Piesm3"cus, (violaceus, nigrescens, etc.), of the licoperdoideous tribe likewise, but coriaceous, with seeds pulverulent and attached to numerous interior threads, etc. In Penn. D3Xticia, (clathroides) akin to clathrus, but without volva. Found in Delaware. Acinophora, (aurantiaca) akin to tulostoma, but bearing berry¬ like seeds. In Penn. Colonnaria, (urceolata, truncata, etc.), divided into four pillars, united at the top, which bear the seeds in the margin. Found in Penn. Cerophora, (clavata, globosa, pyriformis. thamnioides, dicho- toma fastigiata, minuta, etc.), is a fine new genus, akin to hydnum, but the fructification is in horn-like terminal papillas. Found in dif¬ ferent states. Dicarphus, (rubens) ver3^ curious mushroom, with two sorts of fructifications, something like the thelephora uppermost, and hydnum underneath. I found it in Penn. Priapus, ( niveus) singular mushroom, which has the form of a phallus, and the fructification of the hydnum. In Virg. 1-29 Pyrisperma, (li3^pogea), a sort of truffle, growing under ground’ in the vSands of New Jersey. Sternastrum, ( bosen), it resembles a geastrum that should be pediculated, but bears large seeds, etc. In Virginia. Phorima, (betuliua, coccinea, minuta, etc.), resembling the sessile boletus^ but bearing underneath small concave cavities instead of pores. Found in different states. Feptopora (nivea stercoraria, diflformis, etc.), differs from the sessile boletus by its substance, and being covered all over by pores. In different states. Eriosperma, (alba, fugax, etc. ), the fructification is in a wool covering them. In Penn. Gelatina, (foetidissima, lutea, rubra, alba, etc.), it consists in a jelly almost amorphous, growing upon wood in many states. Xylissus, (lineatus oblongus, cylindricus, etc.), sort of mucor growing upon wood, of which the peridium becomes a mass of seeds at maturity. Found in Penn. Hypolepia, ( Igniarias difformis, etc. ), this singular production, which is called p2ink in some parts of the United States, grows under the bark of decaj^ed trees, and resembles a piece of tinder. Hydromycus. ( tremelloides, aquosus, etc.), this mushroom joins those plants with the tremella. It grows in rivulets, or moist places, on the roots of trees in New Jersey and Penn.” DIOTYBOLE TEXENSIS. A curious Phalloid has been found by Mr. Long, of Texas, and published in the Botanical Gazette with the cut which we reproduce here. The Botanical Gazette is largely devoted to physiological botan^q and its circulation among systematic museologists is necessarily restricted. We are, therefore, pleased to give the plant a more extended notice by repro¬ ducing it in Mycological Notes. Our publication is sent to more than seven hundred addresses, almost everyone of them working mycologists, and located in all parts of the world. Dictybole texensis seems to have a similar structure to the genus Itajahya as illustrated in Engler & Prantl. A better idea of the plant can be obtained from the cut than from the description, and it is to be regretted that the section of the Phalloid was not given as was done with Itajah^m. ‘‘The sterile Fig. <54. plates in upper part of gleba numerous, DICTYBOLE TEXENSIS. short aiid uarrow, arranged in a more or less radiating and imbricated manner; latticed portion with large 130 oblong rings, the surface rugose, and in age loosening out into a large, open, irregular mesh. Spore bearing tissue between the sterile plates and lying between and over the lattice work.” We hope some day to present our readers with photographic reproductions made from the fresh plant. The accompanying cut is evidently much reduced, as the plant is described as being from 7-10 cm. high. 227— TORRENDIA PULCHELLA. We are very grateful to Rev. Camillo Torrend, of Portugal, for specimens of this most curious Gastromycetes, recentl}" described by Bresadola in ‘ ‘ Revista de Sciencias Naturaes do Collegia de S. Kiel.” We are enabled now to illustrate this plant, which is strikingl}^ different in many respects from all Gastromycetes heretofore known. It is pure white, of a soft gelatinous-fleshy nature, and in general appear¬ ance resembles a little Amanita. Instead, however, of having the spores borne on lamellae, the hymenium lines cells of the tissue of the pileus. The excellent illustration prepared by Bresadola, which we reproduce, gives a much better idea of the plant than is possible from description. In this connection it may not be amiss to give a little personal history of Father Torrend and his Order, which we have learned from an outside source. He is a member of the Order of the Jesuits. We have the highest appreciation of the work that has been done for science by members of this Order, although owing to their modesty and self-sacrifice, it is rarely brought to the notice of the average reader. To this it might be added that the Order of the Jesuits is a teaching order, and the members are chiefly engaged in educational work in all portions of the world. No one can join the Order unless he assumes the obligations to devote his life to study, teaching and other oc¬ cupations which are considered to promote the honor of God and the spiritual welfare of his fellowmen. He must be a man of learning, and as they renounce all claim to personal property, must be a man of absolutely unselfish views. While not a member of the Catholic Church, I have several correspond¬ ents in the Order of the Jesuits. I do not believe a more scholarly, learned, or unassuming class of men are engaged in the study of science than are to be found in this Order, and to them the world of science is indebted to a degree that few recognize. The patient investigation of these men commands our sincerest admiration. 228-MYCENASTRUM CORIUM. The station farthest East from which we have ever received this plant is near Chicago, Ill., see Mycological Notes, page 119. In his last report, Prof. Peck records this plant from Crown Point, New York. 131 Fig 65. TORRENDU PULCHELLi— A joung plant, mature, and section. All natural size. 229— ANTflURUS BOREALIS IN GERMANY. It is simply a confirmatory incident to illustrate our position that the fungi of this country and Europe are practically the same,, when Prof. Henning finds growing in Europe Anthurus borealis, a plant that was described as a “new species” from this country less than ten 3^ears ago. It is quite a notable addition to the mycological flora of Europe. Compared to our phalloids their phalloid flora is very scanty. It is very confirmatory of our views on the distribution of plants that every phalloid that occurs in Europe has been discovered in the United States although we have quite a number of species that they do not find in Europe. Prof. Henning describes the plant he finds as differing from the American species in some slight particulars and calls it An¬ thurus borealis var. Klitzingii. 230— THE NAME “PILA.” “I notice one thing in your remarks on Bovista pila that makes me think you have misunderstood Berkeley’s name, and I trust you will pardon me for calling your attention to it. You speak of the name as an inappropriate one because the plant is never ‘pilose.’ I do not find that he says in his description that it is pilose, and I have always taken the specific name to be the Latin word pila, ‘a ball,’ which would not be very inappropriate since the fungus is so generally like a ball. If Berkeley had wished to express a hairy character or even a name suggestive of that character, it seems to me he would have written Bovista pilosa.” — Extract from letter of Prof. Chas. Peck. There is no doubt that Prof. Peck has this matter straight, and that we were entirely wrong. Although our limited knowledge of Latin is scarcel}^ more than a memory of our declensions in our boy¬ hood school days, a blunder of this kind is inexcusable, for before accepting as fact, or making a statement of this kind, we should have referred to a Latin dictionary. To be candid, we did not question that Berkeley’s name of the plant referred to the supposed “pilose” nature of the plant and blundered in doing so. We desire to express our best thanks to Prof. Peck for having so courteously called our attention to this matter, and thus enabling us to correct a misstate¬ ment. In this connection we take the opportunity to say that in our record of all plants considered by us, we wish to publish facts only, and we are more than thankful to be advised of any mistake that we ma}" promptly correct it 231— ANOTHER SPECIES OF[OATASTOMA. Since most of this pamphlet has been in type we have received from W. H. Long, Jr., Texas, a species of Catastoma very different from the three described. We think it is a species of Australia, but it is a novelty in the United States. Externally it resembles Bovista pila and the adherent exoperidium does not form such a prominent cup as in other species of Catastoma. We expect the plant will be considered and illustrated in some future issue of Mycological Notes. 132 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BY O. G. L-L-OYD. No. 14. CINCINNATI, o. ffLRHCH 1903. 232— THE TYLOSTOMEAE. This tribe is distinguished b}' having a long stipe which is distinct from the peridium The only other tribe of truly stalked puff-balls ( Podaxineae ), has the stipe continuous to the apex of the peridium, forming an axis. We have representatives of five genera. KEY TO THE GENERA. Peridium opening by circuinscissile deliiscnce . Rattarrea. Peridium not dehiscing circumscissile. Stipe inserted in a “ socket” in base of peridium. Small plants, mouth apical . Tylostoma. Large plants dehiscing irregularly . . .... Oueletia. Peridium seated on the broad apex of the stipe. Peridium opening by an apical mouth . Chlamydopus. Peridium opening irregularly . Dictyocephalos. 2 3 3— B ATT ARRE A . A curious genus with a long stipe, and a peridium that dehisces circularly, the top part coming off like a lid. We have two spe- . cies in our collection from the Western States, but are not sure about them, and therefore will not publish the species until we can further satisf}’ ourselves. 234— TYLOSTOMA. Fig. (J6. Under veiw of peridium, show¬ ing “socket." (Enlarged.) This genus is represented by a num¬ ber of species in this country, and I have thus far been able to do very little with them b}’ means of the literature on the subject. The}' are all little stalked plants, as shown in figure ()T. The peri¬ dium has at the base a kind of “ socket ” into which the stipe is inserted. We expect at some future day to present a paper by which our species may be recognized. It is impossible to do it now. Fig. «7 Tylostoma. (Natural Size.) 235— CHLAMYDOPUS. We have in our Western States a single representative of this family. The genus is close to Tylostoma, and it is still considered by some authors (Hollos, Fischer), as a synonym for Tylostoma. Spe- gazzini, who proposed the genus, distinguished it from Tylostoma by the persistent volva at the base of the stipe, and by the broad attach¬ ment of the stem to the peridium. The first distinction is of little value, as several Tylostomas have volvas more or less persistent as cups at the base of the plants. The second, however, we consider of sufficient importance for generic distinction. In Chlamydopus the peridium is seated on the broad top of the stipe. In Tylostoma the slender stipe is inserted into a kind of ‘ - socket” in the base of the peridium. In addition, as Miss White notes, the general appearance of the two genera are different. In Chlamydopus the plant is smooth, no portion of the volva remaining attached to the plant save the cup at the base. In Tylostoma the volva is of the nature of an exoperidium, partially persistent at the base of endoperidium. Prof. Patouillard, (to whom we had the pleasure of sending specimens ) , notes there is a marked difference in the basidia of the genera. 236— CHLAMYDOPUS MEYENIANUS. (Plate 10.) Entire plant smooth, light color. Peridium globose, smooth, ly^-2 cm. in diameter, dehiscing by a torn mouth, borne on the broad concave apex of the stipe. Columella none. Spores rust color, sub- globose. verrucose, about 6mic. in diameter. Capillitium light yellow, almost hyaline under the microscope, much branched and interlaced, sparingly septate. Stipe long, thick and concave at the apex, tapering down, smooth, sulcate, with aimost woody texture. Volva persisting (normally) as a cup at base of plant, covered with adhering dirt. (The volva is usually absent from herbarium specimens). Prof. C. V. Piper, who has kindly sent us the specimens, fur¬ nished the following interesting notes to the habits of the plant, and it is the first published account of them: “The-plant is by no means rare in the drifting heaps of sand in the vicinity of Pasco. As it usually grows, nothing but the peridium is exposed all the remaining part being subterranean. This point, however, varies with the looseness of the sand, in some cases the wind exposing nearly the entire plant. Where, however, the sand is fairly firm, the whole stipe is underground. The length seems to vary wholly with the amount of loose sand through which it must grow to reach the surface,” Chlamydopus Meyenianus was originally collected in Peru and sent to Klotzsch, who described and figured it as Tylostoma Me^^en- ianum. The plants and figures had no volva at the base, but were otherwise quite characteristic. (*) (*) Dr. Hollos has kindly forwarded to me a drawing of Meyen’s specimens preserved in the Mnsenm at Berlin. There is no question as to its identity with our American plant. 184 The American plant seems heretofore to have been collected only in ATw Mexico. ('^) There is a specimen in Ellis’s collection from E. A. Wooten, New Mexico. SYNONYMS. vSpegazzini, a South American botanist, has beautifully figured the plant and called it a new genus and a new species, Chlainydopus clavatus. He was the first to show the volva at the base of the plant. We think the genus is valid, but there is no reason for the new specific name, save lack of knowledge of Klotzsch’s plant. INIiss White adopts Spegazzini’s name, illustrating the weakness of the attempted use of “priority rules’’ without knowing the facts. Morgan illustrates as “Tylostoma Meyenianum” a plant that cannot be Klotzsch’s species, and is probably Tylostoma obesuni, and does not belong to the genus Chlainydopus. Specimens in our Collection. C. V. Piper. 237— QUELETIA. This genus consists of a single known species described by Fries (1871), from specimens sent from France and named for Dr. Qnelet, a French writer of mycology. It may be likened to a huge Tylostoma, having the same rust-colored gleba and the stipe inserted into a “socket” at base of peridiinn. The peridium does not have a definite mouth, but breaks irregularly after the manner of a Calvatia. Were it not for this character, it would be difficult to say how it differs from T^dostoma save in its size. 238— QUELETIA MIRABILIS. (Plate 10.) Plants from 8 to 7 cm. in diameter, stems 8 to 15 cm. long. Cortex apparently a thin white coat that breaks up into granular particles and mostly disappears, very much the same as that of Bovista plumbea. Endoperidium firm, hard, brown, cracking open irregularly when mature. Stem long, (f), ragged and shreddy externally. It is inserted into a socket at the base of the peridium, like the stems of the little Tylostomas. Spore mass, dark rusty brown. Capillitium light colored, under a microscope almost transparent, tubular (;{;), branched, thick, usually with blunt ends and rarely at all tapering. Spores globose, coarsely warted, 5-6 mic. Our good friend. Dr. Win. Herbst, of Trexlertown, Pa., is fortunate in being the only collector to have ever found the plant in this country, and its occurrence with him was most mysterious. On a pile of spent tanbark at an abandoned tannery, a short distance from (=•') I pre.sume the .specimen .sent Berkeley by Wright from New Mexico was correctly determined, as it is evident from Berkeley’s remarks under Tylostoma angolen.se that he was familiar with Klotz.sch’s plant. (f) None of Ur. Herbst’s specimens that we have seen have a thick, obe.se .stem, as origin ally illustrated by Fries, and copied by Engler & Prantl, and Miss White. (I) That it actually consists of little tubes can be demonstrated In- shaking in alcohol and watching under a microscope as the alcohol dries out. Tittle bubbles of alcohol can be .seen run¬ ning through the tubes. 185 Dr. Herbst’s house, in August, 1892, this plant grew in great abund¬ ance. Not a single specimen ever giew on that pile before or since, and has not been found elsewhere in the United States. (*) Dr. Herbst’s specimen is identical in ever}^ respect with specimens received from France. Specimens in our Collection. Pennsylvania, Dr. Wm. C. Herbst. France, N. Patouillard. 239— DIOTYOCEPHALOS CURVATUS. (Plate 11). One of the strangest plants that has been brought to the notice of mycologists in the last few years is the above, described by Prof. Underwood in 1901. It grows in the arid, alkaline regions of the West, and is a very rare plant. The only collection now known is in the herbarium of New York Botanical Garden. The plant has a thick woody volva, which remains as a cup at the base as shown in our plate, portions being also adherent to the peridium. The stem is long (the specimen photographed measuring 85 cm. ) hard woody, solid, tapering to the base. It is very firm, hard texture, and reminds one more of a portion of a ligneous plant than what would be expected in a Gastromyces. At the top is a kind of false collar, the adherent portion of the peridium. The peridium is thick, rough, hard, flattened pyramidal in shape, (our illustration shows the broadside) “ rupturing irregularly ” (according to Under¬ wood), but we saw no specimen where the peridium had dehisced, simply where they had been broken off from the stem. Capillitium septate, branched. Spores sub-globose, warted. 5-6 mic. This curious plant was found by Mr. E. Bethel in 1897, and sent to Prof. Ellis with the following notes; “These plants are very odd looking in their native haunts; they grow on a soft alkaline adobe soil. Some of them had lifted themselves entirely out of the ground, while others had the stalk standing in about one inch of soil. They presented a very fantastic appearance, as there was little or no other vegetation about. Some of the specimens were very much bent, approximating a semi-circle, others were twisted like a corkvScrew, with the portions of the stalk split and bent back. I think the chief factor in lifting the plant out of the ground is this twisting and bending back of the portions of the stem during dessication.” SYNONYMS. While we have no positive information, we feel very sure it is the same plant that was imperfectly described by Prof. Peck in 1895 as Battarrea atteniiata. In the light of Prof. Underwood’s excellent description and illustration, we do not believe that anyone can read over Prof. Peck’s description without reaching the conclusion that it is the same plant. However, regardless of what the future may develop in this connection, we shall always advocate and use the name Prof. Underwood gave, on the merits of the case. (’(( Miss White states that Prof. Peck thinks the spores were introduced with imported tan- bark. That is not possible, for there was never a pound of any but local Chestnut bark used in that tannery. The hides were imported from .South America, and if the plant grows there might be a solution of the mystery. The plant is only known from P'raiice, and is not recorded by Spegazzini, who has published the fungi of .several South .American countries. 186 240— THE PODAXINEAE. This tribe is characterized by having a stalk continuous to the apex of the peridium forming air axis. Some of the plants are short stalked, some long stalked. The tribe forms a natural connecting link between the Gastromj cetes and Agarics. Thus Podaxon is a true Oastromycetes with capillitia mixed with spores. Cauloglossum is close to H3mienogasters, with its permanent gleba chambers. Secotium is only a step from Cauloglossum the tranial plates not forming such firm cells. Gyrophragmiurn is Secotium with the plates more sinuate- lamellate, and Montagnites, which is usually placed with the Agarics, is only a Gyrophragmiurn with the plates truly lamellate. KEY TO THE G-ENERA. Gleba with irregular, persistent chambers. Peridium, elongated club-shaped . Cauloglossum. Peridium, round or conical, (*) . Secotium. Cjleba with sinuate-lamellate plates . Gyropliragmium. Walls of gleba chambers not persistent . Podaxon. CAULOGLOSSUM TRANSVERSARIUM. (Plate 12.) The genus Cauloglossum is represented by a single known species. The other species bearing the name in the earl^^ botanical works belong to Podaxon, a very different genus. The only species grows in our Southern States, and was little known until last year (1902), when a ver\' full and excellent account was written b}'' J. R. Johnston (f ). The genus with its prominent columella and permanent gleba cells seems to me to stand next to Secotium, from which it differs in its texture and in the thin, irregularly^ ruptured peridium. Cauloglossum transversarium grows only^ in moist situations in , our Southern States (J). The plants are club-shape or broadly^ oblong, and hax^e a short stalk which is prolonged as a broad columella to the apex of the plant. Externally they are smooth, dark brown, inter¬ nally^ “gamboge y^ellow when young, becoming dirty olive brown,” (Thaxter) . The peridium is simple, thin, smooth, and “ ruptures irregularly and indefinitely exposing the chambers of the glebe underneath. In some mature specimens is even more or less evanescent, the exposure of the gleba chambers giving a honeycombed appearance to the entire surface,” (Johnston). The gleba of an olive color is composed of small, permanent chambers, similar to those of Rhizopogon. The spores are elliptical, smooth, 8x8 mic., light brown color, almost transparent under high power. (*) This distinction between Cauloglossum and Secotium is not satisfactory. The difference between the genera, to my mind, is one of texture hard to express in words. Cauloglossum is close to Rhizopogon as to texture of gleba, Secotium more closely related to Gyrophragmiurn. He.sides, the thin, friable peridium of Cauloglossum is different from the persistent peridium of Secotium. (t) Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and Sciences, July, 1902. (f) Prof. Thaxter (1897), found it “ abundantly growing out of the bases of living or dead trees, or upon rotten .stumps or fallen logs, or among rubbish on the ground close by.” Thos. F. Wood (1880), sent a number of specimens to Prof Ellis, and wrote: ‘Tt grows along the moist margin of a mill pond near Wilmington, N. C., in a loamy soil under the undergrowth. They are quite common. I found the remains of many of them in a semi-liquid .state.” 187 SYNONYMS. This plant has been fortunate in having only one name, Cauloglossum transversarium, applied to it in most books, and it is well established. It was first called Tycoperdon transversarium (by Bose, 1811). Recently a “juggled^’ name, Rhapalogaster transversarium, has been proposed for it. (*) Specimens in our Collection. Florida, an alcoholic specimen kindly sent us by Prof. Thaxter. North Carolina, a dried specimen from the Ellis collection kindly given us by Prof. Britton. We hope our Southern friends will watch out for this plant, and .supply us more abundantly. 242— SECOTIUM. This genus, the name of which means a cell, has always been of interest, as it has alwa3^s been known as a step towards the agarics, and the only frequent plant we have with this character. Secotium acuminatum is the most frequent species both in this country" and Europe. The genus can be divided into smooth and rough spored species. We have in our collection only one belonging to each section that we will describe, (t ) 243— SECOTIUM ACUMINATUM. (Plate 13.) So extreme^ variable is this plant as to shape and markings, that it is hard to describe it, and we believe a reference to our plate ( No. 18), will give a better idea of it than we can put into words. (J) One might well say that several species are depicted there, but it is not practicable to separate them, as wideE^ diverging plants (Plate 13, figs. 6 and 7) grow side b}" side, and are evidently the same species. The stalk is usually short, but distinct, and is prolonged to the apex of the peridium forming an axis for the gleba. The peridium is light colored, of a soft texture, not brittle; it tardily dehisces by breaking awa}^ at the base, as shown in figs. 1 and 10. The surface is smooth, or spotted with scales, as shown in our figures. The shape is usuall}'' acute-ovate, sometimes obtuse, globose or depressed globose. I think it is never truly acuminate, and the name, strictly speaking is a misnomer. The gleba is composed of semi-persistent, elongated, irregular cells plainly seen under a glass of low power, or even to the eye (see fig. 9). Capillitium none. Spores, globose or ovate globose, smooth^ often apiculate, 5-6 mic. (*) The author labors at great length for an excuse to change the name, and devotes more than half of his article to the subject. His conclusions appear to us in brief to be that as this is the only plant that can bear the name of Cauloglossum, all other plants so called belonging to other genera, therefore this cannot bear it and imxst have a new name to which the author can add his own He does not use the name himself, however, simply proposes it for others use who may be willing to employ' an unfamiliar name (if they will add this author’s name to the “new combination'’). For himself he prefers to u.se the old, familiar name, and the title of his paper is “ On Cauloglossum tran.sver.sarinm Fries iBosc).’’ (t) We have from W. H. Fong, Jr., another smooth spored species from Texas that is a novelty as to this country. As Mr Fong is working on a paper on the subject, we do not wish to anticipate him, and will pass further consideration of the plant for the present. (1 ) “I have collected in Hungary more than a thousand speedmens of this fungus, and they were of such a varietv of color and form that it would certainly be possible to manufacture .several dozen species therefrom.’’ ' Hollos. 188 DISTRIBUTION. The plant reaches us from almost all sections of the United States except the Eastern States, and is widel}' distributed, but does not seem to be abundant in aii}^ particular localit3\ It is also wideh’ distributed in Europe, Asia and Africa. SYNONYMS. Hollos states that half of the species in Saccardo belong to this one species. He calls it S. agaricoides, which I consider a “ juggled ” name. It was described from this country first as a bycoperdon, (to which genus it has no resemblance), as bycoperdon Warnei, afterwards changed to Secotimn Warnei, and under this name usually appears in our literature. I do not think there is the slightest basis for separating our plant from the European plant. Specimens in our Collection. ]V(isJiington, C. V. Piper; Colorado, H. B. Sterling, Rollin H. Stevens; Nebraska, Rev. J. M. Bates; Iowa, b. H. Panimel, T. H. Macbride, b. R. Waldron; Kansas, B. Bartholomew; Missouri, C. H. Demetrio; Minnesota, Mary S. Whetstone, E. P. Ely, Minn. Bot. Survey; Michigan, b. E. Weld, C. G. bloyd; Illinois, b. H. Watson; Ohio, A. P. Morgan, W b. Aiken, Dr. H. b. True, C. G. bloyd; Kentuckg, H. Garman; Alabama, C. E. Baker; Texas', W. H. bong, Jr.; Canada, J. Macoun; Ilnngarg, Dr. b. Hollos. We think the plant does not occur in the Eastern States. 244— SECOTIUM MACROSPORUM. ( Plate 13.) Peridium subglobose, smooth, lf4-3 cm. Stem very short, or none. Spore mass dark brown. Columella slender. Spores glo¬ bose. apiculate, rough, 10-12 niic. This little species is described from specimens sent by E. P. Ely from Dallas, Texas. It widelj^ differs from our common species bj^ its Large, rough spores (*). . It grew, I judge, on the ground. No one else has ever sent me the plant, and W. H. Long, Jr., who has made extensive collections of Gastromjxetes in Texas, has never found it. Specimens in our Collection. Texas, (Dallas), E. P. Ely. 243— SECOTIUM RUBIGENUM. Our knowledge of Secotium rubigenum (t) is confined to an examination of specimen in Ellis’s collection. Dr. Hollos' claims “ it is Fig. (>8. Secotium rubigenum. (Natural size.) only a young” Secotium acuminatum. It impressed us as being quite different. It is of a firmer texture and is dark red, both within and without. \Ve have many specimens of S. acuminatum, and have (*) Prof. Patouillard advises me that he knows but two other species with rough spores Secotium olbiuni, a curious little species that grows ou fallen oak leaves in Southern Europe, and Secotium Mattirolianus, with a long stalk, from Ital}'. Neither of these plants has any resem¬ blance (save the rough spores), to our little species, as will be noted by referring to the cuts reproduced in Engler and Prantl. (t) Not Secotium nubigenum, as Hollos and others have copied typographical error in Saccardo., 139 never noted the least indication to turn reddish (*). Besides, S. rubigenum grew ‘ ‘ on logs of Pinus con tortus, summit of Sierra Nevada.” Our S. acuminatum always grows in the ground. 246— HYPOBLEMA. The specimen on which the genus Hypoblema is based is in the New York Botanical Gardens labeled Lycoperdon lepidophorum. The genus differs from Calvatia in having a distinct thin membrane lining the peridium. We believe the plant has three peridia.. The exo- peridium similar to the cortex of Galv-atia, remains of which are seen as warts on the specimens. (Plate 14, fig. 1); a thick endoperidium like that of Mycenastrum; and a thin, membranaceous, third peridium covering the gleba. This third peridium is very evident in the speci¬ men, and can be plainly seen in our photograph. If we are mistaken as to these warty remains representing a cortex, we still think the genus is distinct from Calvatia, for then the exoperidium is thick and hard and the endoperidium a thin, distin^ct membrane, lining the exoperidium, just the reverse of the peridium structures of Calvatia. 247— HYPOBLEMA LEPIDOPHORUM. (Plate 14.) Plants depressed globose, from 10 to 20 cm. in diameter. Peri¬ dium 1 mm. thick, hard, breaking into irregular fragments like a Calvatia, marked with darker, wart-like, raised blotches, the remains (I think), of a cortex. Lining membrane, soft, paper-like, a dark, thin membranaceous layer, not adherent to the peridium, and entirely covering the spore mass (in all the specimens I saw). While it is more persistent than the thick peridium, it undoubtedly finally breaks up into fragments that fall away. The plants have no sterile base (f)- Spore mass, dark olive. Capillitium colored, consisting of slender interwoven branched threads, of a nearly uniform (5 mic. ) diameter. Spores globose, echinulate, 5-6 mic. This plant in its internal structure is the same as the little- known genus Lanopila, if I understand that genus. It differs from all other genera in the nature of its peridium layers as previous described. SYNONYMS. The plant was described by Ellis as Lycoperdon lepidophorum, ( t) and compiled into Saccardo as Bovista lepidophorum. It was well described by Morgan as Calvatia pach)alernia, but Morgan was mistaken in referring to Peck’s Lycoperdon pachyderma, Ellis’s Lycoperdon lepidophorum. The two plants are very different in their peridia, their spores and their capillitia. The plant is figured in Gast. Genera as Hypoblema pachyderma. (■•■■■) Hollos states “when the fresh specimen (S. acuminatum), is touched with the finger it acquires rose-red, sometimes blood-red spots.” Our American plant does not. (t) So Morgan and Bllis state, we have never seen a specimen cut open. (|) The specimens ware collected at Huron, Dakota, by Nellie E. Crouch, and are pre.served in the Ellis collection. They are labeled Eycoperdon lepidophorum, and there is a note by Ellis, “ Morgan probably correct in considering this only E. pachyderma Pk.” In reading over Peck’s description, I noted .several discrepancies and wrote to Prof. Peck, who kindly sent me type material of his Eycoperdon pachyderma. It is a Calvatia, but has neither the spores, capillitia nor peridia of Plllis's plant. 140 248— DIPLOCYSTIS WRIGHTII. (Plate 15.) There are two genera of “puff-balls” (if they are not the same), that widely differ from all others in having the individuals grow densely on a common matrix. We were greatly pleased to receive from L. J. K. Brace, Bahamas, a fine specimen of one of these curious genera. _ Previously we had seen it, but only fragments. Diplocystis Wrightii was described by Berkele}" from ('uban material in 1865. It is found in several of the West Indies. The individual plants are about cm. in diameter. They are densely seated on a common matrix (*). The exoperidium of each specimen seems to be confluent with the matrix. The top breaks off in a cir- cumscissile manner, and falls away, leaving the base as a cup containing the little “puff-ball.” The endoperidium is rather firm, smooth, lighter color than exoperidium. It opens by small apertures at the top (t). Spore mass dark, fuliginous, with no sterile base. The capillitium is very interesting (J) . It appears as shreds (of a mem¬ brane) of various diameters, from 8 to 80 mic., branched and inter¬ woven. The thin shreds are almost hyaline smooth, and not widely different from the hyaline capillitium of other gastromycetes. The thick .shreds are light yellow colored, and under a high power marked with a dense reticulation. Spores globose, 4-5 mic. smooth or min¬ utely punctate, many .short-apiculate. Berkeley described the curious genus Broomeia from South Africa (^) in 1844. Twenty-five years later he described these plants from Cuba. Although the two genera are evidenth' close, (and I have seen it stated that they are the same), Berkeley does not indicate how they differ, and does not mention Broomeia in his account of Diplocystis. One would have trouble to conclude from the figures and description in Kngler and Prantl what the difference is. I judge * from Murra3"’s account of Broomeia (Jour. Dinn. Soc. ) that the dis¬ tinction is this. Broomeia has a common exoperidium covering all the puff-balls in each cluster. Diplocystis has an individual exope¬ ridium for each endoperidium. Fischer in Saccardo compiles Di.scisceda as as^mon^nn for Diplo- C3'Stis. Dr. Hollos has proven that Discisceda is the same as Catastoma. 240— ARACHNION. The genus Arachnion can be briefl3^ described as being puff¬ balls within puff-balls The entire interior of a ripe specimen is filled, not with dust, (.spores and capillitium) as most puff-balls, but with a granular substance that feels “ gritt3" ” when rubbed between the fingers. The.se granules are peridioles; the3^ are little sacks containing spores. The3^ are small, but can be seen under a hand-glass, and even with the naked e3’e. The3^ are the color, and appear as if the puff-ball was filled with ashes. The name Arachnion refers “ to a spider sac filled with eggs.” f*l The figure in Engler and Prantl sho\v.s them somewhat remote from each other. In all specimens we hav'eseen they are almost contiguous. (t) It is not a definite, protruding mouth, as shown in figure in Engler & Prantl. (f) Berkeley simply .states capillitium “lax.” (is) It does not grow at Albany, Sew York, as erroneously stated in Saccardo. 141 250— ARACHNION ALBUM. (Plate 16.) But one species is really known of this genus, Araclinion album, and that was described by Schweinitz (*). It is a very small plant, rarely being over 1 cm. in diameter, and usuall}^ half that size. The peridium is smooth, very thin fragile, and easily breaks into fragments (f). The peridioles, irregular in shape and size from 150 to 250 mic., and under a microscope have a ragged appearance, the membrane being composed of loosely woven hyphse ( J ) . Mixed with the ripe peridioles are fragments of hyphae threads, thick, often septate, but these, I think, are not true capillitium, but rather loose threads from the peridioles. The little peridioles are filled with spores (^), smooth, globose, often apiculate, small. 3-4 mic. Specimens in our Collection Texas, W. H. hong, Jr. OJiio, A. P. Morgan, C. G. hloyd. Massachusefts, Geo. B. Fessenden. We think this plant is not so rare as its scanty representation in our collection would indicate, but that is generally overlooked on account of its small size. Spegazzini states it is common in South America, and Patouillard has told me that he has received specimens from the West Indies. In addition to specimens listed above, we have specimens from F. J. Braendle, Washington, D. C., and Mrs. E. B. Blackford, Boston, that appear tons to be dif¬ ferent, being yellow inside when immature, and having thick capillitium threads mixed with the peridioles. At the time we received them we thought they were only a condition of Araclinion album, but now are disposed to think otherwise. They will be further considered in the future. 251— NOTES ON THE GEASTERS An author goes to work and fixes up the characters of the various species from material at hand, and thinks he has the subject all straightened out. The trouble is that plants are perverse, and will not confine themselves to the characters authors think they should. You get the distinction between two “species” clear in your mind, and along comes a lot of specimens exactly intermediate, and 3^ou do not know to which to refer them. Dr. Hollos has a very sim¬ ple method of solving all such problems. In genera like Mycenastrum and Polysaccum when the “species” grade into each other, he throws them all without distinction into one species f ||). This is an easy way of disposing of a very troublesome subject. If we should con¬ solidate all the Geasters of which intermediate forms reach us from time to time, we will eventually have but one species of Geaster. The less a man knows about these things, the more he thinks he knows. The more scanty the material from which he works the clearer the species are (to him). These thoughts are strongly impressed on us from studying a lot of Geasters received from W. H. Long, Jr., Texas. It is a section from which we had previously very little material, and many of the forms Mr. Long sends are puzzles to us. (*) Araclinion Bovista and Araclinion Drummondii are little more than nomime nudce, and Araclinion aurantiacum is simply a guess based on Kafinesque’s vaporings, and is far more ])robably Scleroderma flavidum. (f) Owing to its fragile nature, it is difficult to preserve perfect specimens unless thej^ are very carefully handled. (P Very different from the smooth, firm peridioles of Nidulariaceae. ({;) Easily seen 113' crnshing the peridiole with a cover gla.ss on a slide. (!l) In a letter just received, he writes me he has reduced all species of Battarrea to a single species. 142 252— GrEASTER FLORIFORMIS. From material sent by Mr. Long and from other sources abund¬ antly since our Geaster pamphlet was issued (cfr. The Geastrae, p. 11 and 43 ) , we are thoroughly convinced that Dr. Hollos is right, that Morgan’ s delicatus was described from imperfect material, and that the plant does have normall}' a protruding mouth and often an elongated form. As Vittadini has therefore more accuratel}’ described and figured the plant, we have no further reason to retain Morgan’s name. Nor is the plant the “little” species we supposed. In a collection of a hundred or more received from C. H. Baker, Florida, not one of them was as large as a pea, and yet we have in our collection now all grades of size up to I >2 cm. in diameter. As the plant reaches the size of G. mammosus, and as that species is only distinguished by its definite mouth, an unstable character (see The Geastrae, p. 4), we would not be surprised to receive any day specimens that we would not know whether to refer to G. floriformis or G. mammosus. Among Mr. Long’s specimens were a few not so strongly hygro¬ scopic as called for in the description; in fact, had they been sent separately we should have referred them to G. arenarius. This raises the question if G. arenarius is not, in fact, a slightly hygroscopic form of G. floriformis. The plants from Jupiter, Florida, from which the species was described, however, have smaller spores. OTHER SPECIES. Among a lot of typically asperate specimens of G. asper were a few evidently the same, but smooth. Is the supposed asperate char¬ acter of G. asper of any value? One lot of plants were intermediate between G. pectinatus and G. Schmidelii. We have labeled them G. Schmidelii, but it is a question whether they are large, long-pedicellate G. Schmidelii, or small, short-pedicellate G. pectinatus. As different as our illustrations of G. triplex and G. saccatus var. major ma}" appear, we have specimens not only from Mr. Long, but from others that we do not know whether to consider as a large form of G. saccatus or a small form of G. triplex. As distinct as the extreme forms appear to be, intermediate specimens occur that seem to connect them. 253— A CORRECTION. In the foot note on page 125, we state that “ Corda (1842), pointed out the spore distinction between Mitremyces lutescens and cinnabarinus, but put them in two genera.” This we erroneously inferred from what Burnap states (our copy of Corda being loaned). We find on return of the book that Corda “ put them in two genera,” but he did not “ point out the spore distinction,” and apparently did not know the plants. He copied the genera from Desveaux and Nees von Esenbeck, and evidently had no suspicion .that they were the same. 113 254-aEASTER RUFESOENS IN WASTE PLACES. “I found a large patch, probably twenty or twenty-five feet in area, of Geaster rufescens at the corner of Main and Elm streets, Grofton, N. Y. At the corner of the streets named had been a building of the Grofton Bridge Co. This spot apparently had been at some time a dumping place for cinders and shop sweepings, and among which were evidences of iron turnings. Thus the soil was largely impregnated with oxide of iron. Geaster rufescens grew very profusely over the entire area named. I could hardly thrust the point of my cane between them. It was a sight worthy the attention of the most care¬ less observer, but scores of people passed the spot daily without even seeing the plant.” — Extract from private letter from Frank R. Rath- burn, Auburn, N. Y. 2 o 5— THE CLEAVAGE OF SCLERODERMA GEASTER. ‘ ‘ I have found a fine example of the peculiar cleavage of the peridium of Scleroderma Geaster that you have illustrated in Myco- logical Notes, page 81. It is caused in this case, I think, by immature plants being killed by the cold weather. The spore mass in drying sticks to the inner side of the peridium, and in weathering does not dry as readily as the outer layer of the peridium, which gradually peels off, as shown in your photograph. I have several stages of this interesting process. The plants named were killed about Nov. 23rd, 1902, being the second crop of this species to develop this fall; the -first developed in October, the continued rains and warm weather starting a second lot. but as I have stated, cold weather killed them before they matured. In none of the first crop was this cleavage observed, although I collected many specimens, while numbers of the present crop show evidence of this cleavage.” — Extract from letter from W. H. Long, Jr., of Denton, Texas. We do not doubt that Mr. Long has presented a correct solution of this problem, and we are glad to be able to publish the information. Such facts as these ought to be recorded by all means. As Mr. Long states, ” I find it much more interesting to study plants than the litera¬ ture of plants.” 256— LEPIOTA MORGANI in EUROPE. Prof. Bresadola, to whom we sent specimens of Lepiota Morgani, advises us that in his opinion the plant is the same as Krombholz has described and illustrated under the name of Agaricus gracilentus. It has always been supposed in this countr}^ that Lepiota Morgani, with its greenish gills, was something unique, the fact having been over¬ looked that Krombholz described and illustrated Agaricus gracilentus with gills ‘ ‘ Blassgriinlich werdenden,” and that his figure 14 shows the gills decidedly greenish. The top of the pileus as shown in figure J3, does not have the same scales that our plant has, but Krombholz’ s figure 16 of his species Agaricus subtomentosus is a perfect illus¬ tration of our plant. Although he described the gills as white, we would not be surprised if it turned out that Agaricus subtomentosus 141 was based on the same plant, because it is well known that the gills of Lepiota Morgan! are white until the spores ripen. Certain it is that the figure of Agaricus subtomentosus is a perfect representation of the plant much better than any that have appeared in this country. We presume in view of these facts that priorists will have to call our American plant “ Cepiota gracilenta,” and we would consider it very unfortunate if we felt obliged to do the same. We do not undervalue the historical importance of the information Prof. Bresadola has kindly given, although we feel it would be a misnomer to call a plant “slender,” when in reality it is the largest and most obese of our species. 257— COPRINUS RADIANS. Several years ago while at Boston I found some of our Myco- logical friends puz/ding over a little species of Coprinus which had been found in a tuft of Ozonium. They were surprised when I told them it was the most common species that we have in our woods around Cincinnati, and that it usually grows in this Ozonium. It has been a question to me for many years what the connection is between this Coprinus and the Ozonium. If it were only occasionally that we find the two associated, we might think that in these cases the Ozonium was merely an accidental host. In certain seasons of the year. Coprinus radians grows very common in the woods around Cincinnati. We have noted it hundreds of times, and in almost every instance it grows from a patch either small or large of brown Ozonium. It is particularly partial to Elm, and an elm tree that has fallen only a year or two and still retains its bark is a favorite habitat for the plant. We have counted over a hundred specimens growing from cracks in the bark of a fallen elm. Ozonium auricomum, as named by Link, is very common on fallen branches of elm, forming a dense cushion of coarse brown fibers. It looks not unlike coarse brown wool. You find it in Engler and Prantl (p. 517), under “Sterile Mycelium of doubtful belongings,” and described with “ fructification unknown.” It was considered by Fries as a sterile mycelium. Rarely do we find it in the proper season in this locality that a number of specimens of Coprinus radians do not grow from it. The question that I have tried to solve is, “ Is it the myce¬ lium of this species of Coprinus?” The constant as.sociation of the two, and the fact that no other species of Agaric grows in the Ozonium in our localit}’, strongly tend to this conclusion. I am not expert enough with the use of the microscope to trace the connection between the two, but Prof. Bresadola writes me “Dr. Penzig has a study in 1880 of Ozonium and Coprinus, and has reached the conclusion that the Ozonium is the mycelium of the Coprinus. I have examined your specimen and find nothing to confirm the opinion of Penzig. I find only points of contact, but I have not been able to trace the hyphae of Ozonium into the hyphae of Coprinus. However, I have reserved 3"Our .specimen to study anew and compare it with the work of Penzig, which at this moment I do not have.” 145 The article of Dr. Penzig (to which Bresadola refers), is found in Nouvo Giornali Botanico Italiano 1880, p. 13*2. It is in Italian, therefore unreadable ( to us), but the conclusions evidently are that the Ozonium is the mycelium of Coprinus. I do not understand, however, exactly what the connection is. The radiating mycelium at the base of the plant (fig. 69 ), is white. Ozonium is always reddish brown. Rarely do we find specimens with the white mycelium so strongly developed as in the plant selected for illustration. In regard to the identity of the species of Coprinus, we do not know under what name U appears in American literature. Such a common plant must have been noticed, and probably mas¬ querades as a new species somewhere. Dr. Penzig (loc. cited), describes it as a new species, Coprinus intermedins, and his description and figure is exactly the plant we have at Cincinnati, thus confirming the position that the Ozonium is the mycelium of this particular plant. Prof. Patouillard, to whom we sent speci¬ mens, determines it as Coprinus radians. It has but little resemblance to Cooke’s figure, and still less to Massee’s. In addition, Coprinus radians in English books seems to be a species that only occurs on plastered walls. The only reference I have found to the color of the spores, (save Penzig, loc. cited where they are correctly described as brown-black), is Massee “ violet-black,” ascribed to radians. The spores of our plant in mass when fresh and moist are brown^ as brown as the spores of any Psalliota that ever grew (*). But in drying they turn darker, almost black. I have found in all books I have consulted that the spores of Coprinus are described as black, and no allowance is made for the inclusion of any brown-spored species. Fig. 69. Coprinus radians. 258— DISTRIBUTION OF MITREMYOES. We hope that everyone who meets specimens of Mitremyces growing will favor us with at least a few specimens of each species that we may study their distribution. There is something very mys¬ terious about it. Mitremyces cinnabarinus is a common plant that we have found growing in the Alleghenies. There seems to be some sections, however, (as at Washington, D. C., and at Rugby, Tenn.), where the two other species grow, and Mitremyces cinnabarinus is not found. H. M. Caldwell, of Rugby, Tenn., has just sent us a fine lot of Mitremyces Ravenelii and lutescens, but does not find cinnabarinus. In connection with the Mitremyces subject, we have received a letter from Mrs. M. S. Percival, of Rugby, Tenn., stating that she ( •■M Those who work with Coprinus in this country know that we have two common species with hrnwii spores. The plant under consideration and Coprinus pulcherifolius. But it is only when the spores are fresh and moist. They turn almost black when dry, hence it is not practi¬ cable to take them out of the genus Coprinus. 146 has noted specimens where the spore-sac protrudes through the mouth slits, thus confirming Massee’s statement. We have never seen specimens. We have received another consignment of Mitremyces Ravenelii, var. minor, from F. J. Tyler, and they are exactly as the previous lot — no connecting forms between them and the ordinary form of Mitre¬ myces Ravenelii. We feel that in time this “variety ” will be entitled to a specific rank. 239— TREMELLODON G-ELATINOSUM. There are certain characters that in the Friesian system are associated with certain tribes or alliances of plants. Thus spines with the Hydnei; gills with Agarics; pores with the Polyporei; gelatinous texture with the Tremellae, etc. (;<') Occasionally we find a plant combining two of these characters, and then, of course, there is a diversity of opinion as to its classi¬ fication. Such a plant is the one named above. With the gelatinous texture of the Tremellae it has the spines of the Hydnei. Fries, Stevenson and others class it as a Hydnei; the modern writers, on account of its basidia, with the Tremellae. The plant seems to be common in Europe, and has been illustrated a number of times. In this coun¬ try it seems to be rarer. It is not mentioned in Atkinson’s work, and we do not find it in the index of the first 27 reports of Peck. We are under the impression, however, that Peck has recorded it somewhere. We gathered it last summer on logs in Northern Michigan. There is no necessity of a detailed description of it here. With our iliustration and the fact that it has the soft tremulose structure of a Tremellae and the spines of a Hydnum no one can mistake it. Our plant does not have the long stipe shown in illustration of Engler and Prantl. Fig. 70. Tremellodon gelatinosum. 260— NOMENCLATURE. “ I see you stand up firmh^ against the criticisms in reference to omission of authors’ names. The evils 3’ou deplore for much of the egotistical practice I full}^ appreciate, and I can indorse all you say on that point. In spite of this, I am bound to say that my experience from day to day convinces me more thoroughh^ that endless confusion must result by the summary sacrifice of author citation. In the group ( *) In the new system that is bein^ gradually evolved, based primarily on basidia structurei the prominent characters of configuration are only secondary in importance. It may be more scientific, but I am partial to the Friesian system. The simpler we make classification the more persons we will interest in the stud}', and the more facts and information will be published about the plants. Minute anatomical studies are of interest, but only a comparative few have the patience or the skill to follow them out, and to make a knowledge of them the first requisite of classification debars a great number of workers. 147 that you study, comparatively limited in the number of forms, I can see no great inconvenience arising from the practice. I think, how¬ ever, that the experience of others will be more in a line with that of my own. I merely say this word in passing, from which you may know that the matter is one of interest to me; most advantageous practice will doubtless result from the experience of many specialists. Your form must be desirable, and yet it looks to me as though it is a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.” — Extract from letter from Prof. W. A. Kellerman. Our views on the nomenclature subject have been published so frequently it is not necessar}" to here repeat them. We believe, briefly, that personality in botanical science is the greatest weight attached to this study. More “ new species ” are published, more juggling of the names of old species are due directly to this cause than to any other. If the present plan is eternally followed, viz., that of describing plants in such an indefinite way that workers cannot tell from the description what the plants are, endless confusion must ever result. But if ever}' botanical writer will make it his first duty to so describe and ii^lustr ate his plants that others may know them, the matter will soon probably be rationally cleared up. the names of the plants then conveying the descriptive ideas they should. As things are now, chains of men are wasting time, either willingly or by protest, affixing their own names and personalities where the voice of science only has a right. 261— ‘CHARLEY’S” VIEWS OF NOMENCLATURE. We have on our list of acquaintances a celebrated ‘ ‘ bug hunter.” We know him quite well, well enough, in fact, to call him ” Charley.” Many a friendly discussion have we had with him on the subject of affixing personal names to the name of bugs and plants. Charley is a firm believer in it, but Charley is a candid fellow. He does not beat the devil around the bush and argue about the “confusion that would rCvSult” if we called things what they are, nor does he cite that great bugaboo, ‘ ‘ how are you going to tell what is meant when two men have called different objects the same name.” He puts it on the only ground that is rationally at the bottom of the whole scheme, a personal ground. Authors like to see their names in print. He says: “When I hunt up a new beetle and describe it, my name is put after it. That is my nward. If you take this away from me, what other returns do I get for all the trouble and labor I have gone to in the matter?” If all our critics were as candid as “ Charley,” we think we could soon show that the pursuit of science is its own reward, that it is not necessary to introduce a scheme of personal advertisements in order to study nature. While “ Charley” and I do not agree on this point, there is one in which we are in close accord. It does my heart good to hear “Charley” cuss, (and Charley knows how to “cuss” with force) the men who have attempted to change all the names of butterflies. It seems strange to me that “Charley” does not see that this same per¬ sonal incentive is the basis of all these name-changers, and that it is only a question of time when they will brush his name from all the bugs he has discovered. 148 MYCOLOQICAL NOTES. BY C. G. LLOYD, No. 15. CIIsICINNATI, o. _ MAY 25, 1903. 262— NOTES OF TRAVEL. WASHINGTON. The only puff ball collection I know of in Washington is in the Herbarium of the department of Plant Industry, in care of Mrs. Pffora Patterson. It is not very extensive; however, it presents some points of interest. Calvatia rubro-flava was collected in the greenhouse of the De¬ partment of Agriculture at Washington. It seems to be a plant of cultivated ground only. I found it in a potato patch. Mr. H. B. Dorner finds it abundantly in the greenhouses at Lafayette, Ind. It has reached me from as far south as Alabama, (Bertolet), as far west as St. Louis, (Glatfelter). It does not appear to grow in the woods or in wild situations. Simblum rubescens has been gathered at Washington by W. H. Scudder. This plant, originally described from Long Island by Gerard, I now know from three other locations: Nebraska (Bates), Kansas ( Bartholomew) and Washington, D. C., (Scudder). Phscher claims it is the same as Simblum sphaerocephalum of South America. This point I hope to decide to my own satisfaction in Europe this sum¬ mer. If it is, Simblum sphaerocephalum is now very badly figured. C. L. Shear has a commendable liabit of picking up all the puff balls he finds in his travels. As he has spent many months in the western section, I was interested in looking over his specimens. I was glad to find among them a Catastoma which is new to me and which is the fifth species I now know to grow in this country. Mr. Shear kindl}^ gave me some type material of the two species of Gastromyce- tes he has recently de.scribed. Scleroderma pteridis seems to be based chiefly on habits. It grows attached to the rhizoma of Pteris at a depth of two or three feet below the surface. As it does not seem ]:>ossible that it can reach the surface, it is probably truly subterranean. I do not think, however, that herbarium specimens can be distinguished in any particular from unopened Scleroderma Geaster. Secotium Arizonicum has many points of resemblance to our common species, S. acuminatum. Dr. Hollos would imdoubtedl}^ so refer it as its spores are the same. Had specimens been sent me I should probably have so named it, though it does seem to dehisce in a different manner and the columella does not reach the apex. If these differences are constant, I think the plant is entitled to specific rank. 149 I had the pleasure of meeting a number of botanists at Wash¬ ington. F, W. Coville, Chief of the Department, who was very kind to me, as were W. H. Evans, A. S. Hitchcock, Win. R. Maxon, P. L. Ricker, R. H. True and others. Some of them are not particularly interested in “p^^® work, though all seemed to take an interest in the stand I have taken on the nomenclature question, and I was surprised and gratified to find they had read after me so closely. I must admit, however, that not one of them (nor any other botanist I have met) is willing to go to the extreme of omitting personal names after the names of plants. All admit the load botany is carrying in the way of synonyms; all deplore the kind of work that is largely done; some even agree with me in ascribing to personal interest much of this work, and yet not one is willing to cast off the the tap-root of the whole trouble. ALBANY. It is gratifying to find Prof. Peck much more pleasantly located than when last I saw him. Then he was crowded in a little hall- way in the Capitol, now he has a large room in Geological Hall where he can conveniently keep his specimens. The “puff balls” of the collec¬ tion are ample in quantity and there is no trouble in arriving at Prof. Peck’s views on each of the New York species. They are mostly kept in trays in a show case for exhibit purposes. But a single specimen of Secotium acuminatum has been found in the state of New York. Mitremyces cinnabarinus occurs but rarely in the southern section; Calvatia caelata has been collected in the state but once and the speci¬ men is not so strongly marked as the western plant with which I am faniiliar. Calvatia craniiformis is not represented at all as a New York species in Prof. Peck’s collection. This is surprising to me as it is abundant about Cincinnati, and I am quite sure I have it from States farther east than New York. The “puff ball” collections, other than New York specimens, are not very numerous. I saw the type of “Secotium decipiens” and it is as I have taken it to be, Gyrophragmium Delilei of Europe. The type of “Battarrea attenu- ata” has been lost and hence I cannot say whether or not it is Dictyocephalos curvatus. From the description, I have thought it to be that plant. From Prof. Peck’s memory of the plant as he kindly described and sketched it, I think it is not. It is certainly unfortun¬ ate that Prof. Peck should have described as a new species a plant, which in the absence of the specimen, must always remain a mystery. It is not even certain whether or not it is a Battarrea. I think the record of Clathrus cancellatus from New York is very doubtful. The only certain specimens I know from this country are from Florida, in the museum at Harvard. The specimens sent Prof. Peck from New York were all broken in little pieces. At that time Prof. Peck was not acquainted with Clathrus columnatus, our most common species, and referred the fragments to Clathrus cancellatus, the only species of which he then knew. It is impossible now from the little that remains in the herbarium, to speak positively, but the probabilities are that it is Clathrus columnatus. 150 middlebury. Two of the pleasantest days I have spent were in a quiet visit with Prof Burt at Middlebury, Vermont. I am very strongly impres¬ sed with Prof. Burt’s method and the thoroughness of the work that he is doing in the Thelephoraceae. The paper will probably appear within a year and will be a credit to American Mycology, and the most important contribution ever written in this country. We all admire thorough work and it is a pleasure to praise a man who goes to the bottom of his subject. One who has not seen Prof. Burt at work, has not seen the hundreds and hundreds of mounts representing type ma¬ terial from all the leading herbaria, can ever appreciate tlie vast amount of patient labor that has been devoted to the subject. I do not believe that Prof. Burt is tinctured with the modern name-chang¬ ing mania. I believe he will employ in the main the principles of naming in general use. And it would be a boon to Mycology if the names he selects are taken as the names of the plants, and thus let the antiquarian investigations as to this order end with this paper. It seems to me a shame that a man who takes up the study of a subject in Mycology, as Prof Burt has taken up the Thelephoraceae, must spend ten times as much time solving puzzles, finding out what others have called plants, as he does studying the plants themselves. CAMBRIDCxE. It was with some misgivings that I made my bow at Harvard and met ProfeSvSors Farlow and Thaxter. I did not know how these college bred men, who had lived and breathed all their lives in the cul¬ tured and learned atmosphere that permeates ever3dhing at Harvard, would receive a country bred visitor from the west. It was gratifying to l^e made to feel at home and in addition to have all the priceless treasures of the Harvard collection placed at 1113" service. I spent a* ’ week in the museum, mostly stud3dng the Curtis collection of Gastro- mycetes, which is of the greatest value as representing Berkele3’’s views of American species. Prof. Thaxter devoted con.siderable time to showing me specimens and drawings of the Eaboulbeniacese And opened 1113’ e3’es upon a new world. I have, of course, known casually of the work he was doing in this order, but I did not realize the beauty and variet3’ of the species nor the fascination of the work. Prof. Thaxter is prac- ticalE^ exploring an unknown world. He is not hampered with the debris left by previous workers, nor does he have to spend most of his time unraveling puzzles of man’s making. He can devote all of his inquiries to the secrets of Nature, and Science can be congratulated that the initiator3^ work is in such capable hands. So much of 1113' time at Cambridge was taken up with the stud3" of the Curtis collection that I had little opportunity to meet the m3^cological workers, so numerous in the vicinit3^ of Boston. I took dinner with Prof. Hollis Webster at the Harvard Union. I am afraid most of Prof. Webster’s time has been devoted lately to matters not strictly mycological. In fact, his engagement to a charming 3^oung lady has been recently announced, and we can ah know how pressing the demands of these matters are on a man’s time Of course I could not leave Cambridge without calling on 1113^ old-time friend, Walter Deane. THE CURTIS COLLECTION. I have looked forward to a visit to the Curtis collection in order to solve several problems that have always confronted me in the study of American “puff-balls.” Curtis was one of the earliest American mycologists, and sent most of the material on which Berkeley based his account of American species. With the aid of the specimens preserved in the Curtis collection we can learn definitely Berkeley’s views, for Curtis divided each collection, retained part in his own herbarium, sent part to Berkeley numbered to correspond, and Berkeley cited these numbers. In addition Berkeley sent to Curtis many plants that he had received from Lea, Sprague and many other American collect¬ ors. My opinion, as stated following, is formed from an external examination of the specimens. I did not make microscopic mounts as it would have involved more time than I could spare, and I feel so familiar with most of our species and their microscopic features that I am willing in most cases to risk my judgment on an external exami¬ nation. In a few instances, however, a spore study will have to be made before positive conclusions can be reached. Morgan and Peck have both printed opinions about Berkeley’s determinations, but asneither has seen the specimens, a number of their conclusions are erroneous. HYDNANGIUM RAVENELH. I have known this plant for some time though I did not know this name for it. Mr. Bertolet sent it abundantly from Alabama, and Prof. Earle had previously given me specimens from the same locality. It is, Mr. Bertolet writes me, the mo.st common Hymenogaster of the south. The .spores are reticulate-tuberculate, more reticulate than any other species. None of my European correspondents to whom I have sent the jdant have recognized it, and it was proposed to call it “Hydnangium reticulatum.” I am glad I did not rush into print with this “new species” when I received it two years ago, as it is one name saved from the grave-yard. Berkeley published it as a variety of H. Stephensii, but I do not question its distinction from that species. “SCLERODERMA TEXENSE.” On page 69 of Mycological Notes I made the statement that it (Gyrophragmium Delilei) was described from Texas as Scleroderma Texense, afterward changed to Secotium Texense, and still later to Gyrophragmium Texense.” That statement is erroneous. The plant that Berkeley described as Scleroderma Texense has no resemblance to what he later described as Secotium Texense, nor does he so state. It was I who was confused, “Scleroderma Texense”now appears to me to be Scleroderma bovista, and “Secotium Texen.se” to be a small- spored form of “Gyrophragmium Delilei.” LYCOPERDON CALVESCENS. Without a spore examination it is difficult to sa}^ how this plant, cited b}’ Berkeley (Wright ()86()) is now known. It is not L. cruciat- um (L. separans) as Morgan surmi.ses. The spines are very similar to those of L. pedicellatum, but Berkeley’s spore de.scription removes it from that plant. I think it is “L. echinatum’ ’ of Peck’s paper, afterward changed to L. Peckii by Morgan. 152 LYCOPERDON PPILCHERRIMUM. There is quite a problem in vSelecting a name for this plant. The specimen on which Berkeley based the description has large, pur¬ ple, rough spores. Berkeley described it as having small, smooth, olive spores. Massee states that the spores have changed since Berkeley worked with the specimens but that does rot appeal to me as being possible. I rather think Berkeley was careless, and was more inter¬ ested in adding his name to a ‘‘new species” than in giving a good description of the plant. It is a question to me whether such work in a case like this has aii}^ claim to recognition. Prof. Peck had no reason to think when he met the plant that Berkeley had described it and can not be blamed for re-naming it E. Frostii. Everything being equal, I personally, would u.se Prof. Peck’s name, but there are other considerations. E. pulcherrimum is particularly appropriate, as it is the ‘‘most beautiful” species we have, and I have always contended that plants as well as men have rights in the selection of names. Besides, since Trelease correctly interpreted Berkeley’s specimen, and Morgan accepted and published it, the name is somewhat estab¬ lished. I rejoice, however, that I do not have to add to the name of this beautiful plant the name of the man who so strongly misrepresent¬ ed it. EYCOPERDON DEEICATlJM. I am glad to locate this name as it has always been a mystery. Morgan had no conception of it as is evident from his paper. PTom Berkeley’s description I have thought it was possibly Calvatia rubro- flava and others have thought the same, as I have seen specimens of Calvatia rubro-flava so named. 2'he plant is our old, famdiar friend, Calvatia craniiformis. EYCOPERDON CRUCIATUM. The .specimen (1846, Olney, R. I.) which Berkeley cites is as we now know the plant, and I have always claimed that Berkeley re¬ ferred our American plant (separans of Peck) to the European species. (Cfr. Myc. Notes, p. 8b). That Curtis had no idea of the species is evident, as we find plants of his naming on his sheets of Wrightii and also on gemniatum sheet. Among those on the Wrightii .sheet is a specimen from Prof. Peck, and Curtis undoubtedly named E. cruci- atum as Wrightii for Prof. Peck. This is a clue to Peck’s subseciuent treatment of cruciatum as a variety (separans) of Wrightii. EYCOPERDON CURTISII AND EYCOPERDON WRIGHTII. Neither of the.se plants are cruciatum, with which they have both been confused. They look very much alike externally, but as I do not know their internal difference I can not say. I would say, that the plant with which I am so familisr, which ^lorgan has called Curtisii and has truly characterized as \mxm^ hy