I
Jil
«
I ' b ' '■ U I I
'Ii i'
• f I
iM »
11
I am happy to have the opportunity of giving the figure of
a species, which docs not seem to be perfectly understood by
those who have written upon tbe fungi. Dr W i t h e i i i n g
considers the yellow and tbe white varieties figured by SoiVEii-
BY as distinct species ; the yellow one as Ag. luteus, the white
one as Ag. cretaceus of B u l l ia b u ; the latter, however, be
has described tndce over, in tbe one place as a variety of A. luteus,
in tbe other place by itself. Dr H o o k e r , in tbe Flora
Scotica, lias followed him in this separation. A l b e r t i n i and
S c h w e in i t z also retain A. cepæstipes for the white variety,
and erroneously place A. luteus. W i t h , as a synonym to tbcir
A. Flamrnula, of the distinction of which there can be no
doubt. In the Systema of F r i e s , we find both varieties,^tlic
Ag. cepæstipes, Sow. in a small uncertain tribe of the Pra-
tella series, while Ag. cretaceus. B u l l , is removed as a distinct
species to the tribe following. The only author I know
of, who has thrown them all together, is Mr P u R T O N . The
fact is, S o w e r b y is really correct in attributing both a yellow
and white colour to this species. I have examined it in both
states very carefully, and have ascertained his representation
to be perfectly faithful. In regard to B u l i .ia r d ’s plant, 1
have not much hesitation in referring it to this place, both
from his plate and description ; but it must he confessed, his
figure of the young pileus so little agrees with ours, as to render
it doubtful whether his young and full-grown specimens
belong to the same species.
Fig. 1. A section o f the stipes and pileus o f a Jull-grown plant, natural size.
Fig. 2. Sporules ; magnified.