NOTES ON FUNGI, FORESTAL AND OTHERS. 133
I fancy that pl. 110 cannot properly be referred to Clitocybe senilis,
although the Rev, M. J. Berkeley considered it to be so. Certainly it is far
from the type.
Collybia pulla, Schft., was found at High Beach, Epping Forest in 1880,
but has never yet been recorded as British. I made drawings of it, at the
time, which may be published some day.1
The little Agarics attached to a yellow sclerotium, published as Collybia
cirrhata, are doubtless also Collybia tuberosa, as no sclerotium is attached to
C. cirrhata, therefore the whole of plate 144 is tuberosa.
A curious Agaric was figured at the bottom of pl. 422 under the name of
Agaricus (Pluteus) phlebophorus, variety reticulatus, which is not a Pluteus at all,
but a species of Entoloma, which has been named Entoloma cookei by a French-
man and doubtless he is nearer the truth.
The fungus figured on plate 317 and called Entoloma jubata is not that
species, although it somewhat resembles it, but should be called Entoloma
porphyrophoea.
I don't know what to say about Ag. (Entoloma) bloxami figured on plate
327, but I strongly suspect that it does not differ from Agaricus madidus, Fries.
When I first found the species which is figured on pl. 354, I sent a draw-
ing and fresh specimens to Fries, asking him if it was not a slender form of
Ag. terrigenus but in reply, he informed me that it was not his species, but a
new one which he should call Ag. (Pholiota) cookei, and it was figured under
that name. Afterwards I found the specimens figured on pl. 349 at Ching-
ford, and these I called Ag. terrigenus. Anyone comparing the two plates will
I think come to the conclusion that both are really the same species, notwith-
standing the slight differences.
As far as I can make out, my original suspicion has been confirmed and
endorsed, that Pholiota comosa and P. heteroclita at least, as far as we know
them, are but two names for the same species. Compare plates 366 and 600.
Somehow the names of Ag. fimiputris and A . phalaenarum got exchanged on
the plates, so that they need correcting.
Although I am jumping from one end of the book to the other in these
remarks, I must not forget to call attention to what is now called Amanitopsis
vaginata, which is very common in the Epping Forest. There are three very
well marked forms, the most common being of a greyish colour, and has been
named livida. I have eaten this and found it to be very delicate and diges-
tible. The same can be said of the more scarce white variety, the nivalis of
Greville. The last of the three forms is bright brown, and has been known
both as spadicea and fusca. This is, I consider, entitled to rank as a distinct
species I tried to eat it once, and I do not intend to try it again, and I am
bound to caution all persons concerned that it is not good to eat. For this,
as well as other reasons I suggest that we should mark the difference in future,
by calling the brown form Amanitopsis fusca.
There are two species of Hygrophorus figured, one of them called H. tetus
(pl. 938) and the other H. houghtoni (pl. 936), but I cannot find any difference
between them. It has not been uncommon in Epping Forest, whichever
name has been given, but I think that H. houghtoni must be dropped.
1 See description of this species by Dr. Cooke, ante, page 127.—Ed.