10 WORK IN THE FIELD AMONGST THE FUNGI.
they are good species, although at one time they were accepted
as such. The Rev. M. J. Berkeley once described a fungus
under the name of Agaricus sadleri which he considered to be a
species of the subgenus Clitocybe, and was figured in the
Illustrations as Clitosybe sadleri on plate 127. From the very first,
I contended that this was only an abnormal form of Hypholoma
fascicularis, and remonstrated with the venerable mycologist on
that account, but he was so positive that I bowed to his
judgment, as an older hand, and did not presume publicly to
dispute his determination. In the type the gills are greenish
grey, and the spores brownish, but in sadleri the gills are yellow
and the spores, if spores are present, were colourless. Now this
anomaly was found only once, under peculiar conditions, and is
now universally acknowledged as a peculiar form of Hypholoma
fascecularis.
The second illustration is an Agaric, which for many years I
considered to be the true Hypholoma lacrymabundus, and it was
figured under that name in Illustrations on plate 566. Berkeley
always considered and taught that it was that species, and so it
was regarded in this country for more than a quarter of a
century, but at length Dr. Plowright was the first to call it in
question, and demonstrate that it was only a variety of Hypholoma
velutina with the hairs of the pileus tufted like scales. Although
I remained stubborn as long as I could, the time came when I
could resist no longer, but had to accept it as Hypholoma velutina,
and admit my ignorance of the true Hypholoma lacrymabunda.
These two demonstrated errors will exhibit my meaning, and
from this I might diverge, and point out twenty couples which
I am disposed to regard as duplicates of the one species, but
will forbear, until the evidence is stronger than mere suspicion.
It will be work for the future to prove variation, subject to
surrounding influences, in a number of so-called species. Mean-
while I may be permitted to make a suggestion or two. There
is a Russula called Russula rubra, which is acrid to the taste, and
reputed poisonous (fig. 1025), and there is another species which
it would be quite impossible to distinguish from it by external
features, called Russula atropurpurea (fig. 1087), and this is
perfectly sweet and mild, and may be eaten with impunity. If
these are not distinct species, what is the cause of the difference
above indicated? Although I believe them to be one and the