Page:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu/328

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

came from the East Indies. The stem, when any, is short, lateral, woolly and white; lamellæ very different from any other Agaric known, and always split, turning backwards towards the pileus. They are finely fibrous within. None of my specimens have them branched[1]; they are irregularly paired, and seldom inosculate except towards the base. The pileus is woolly, scolloped, zoned, and striated with furrows opposite to the lamellæ. Texture somewhat leathery and durable. I have been favoured with specimens from Owhyhee by Mr. Menzies, and from Sierra Leone in Africa by Dr. Afzelius. Mr. B. M. Forster found several on a timber between Shoreditch and Hackney; but from whence it came he knew not. The plant is common in the South of France.


TAB. CLXXXIV.

AGARICUS Millus.

This curious Agaric was gathered in Kensington Gardens, where there were great plenty, January 1796. I am not sure of its being a species; but as it is difficult to make out satisfactorily to what it belongs, I could not resist figuring it. The prickly collar is most likely to afford a specific difference.


TAB. CLXXXV.

AGARICUS flaccidus.

A distinct species not uncommon in pine woods. Mr. Hunter shewed me plenty in Lord Manssield's wood at Hampstead, in the autumn of 1796. This fungus is apt to vary in its proportions and growth. The stipes is cottony at the base, from a quarter of an inch to an inch or more in height, often lateral. The gills are close, with some intermediate ones, but not sufficiently regular to reckon in pairs or regular numbers. The pileus is thin, and resembles tanned leather. It is often prettily stained or blotched in an advanced state. A. mollis Bull, may possibly be this plant.

  1. It should seem that A. betulinus, tab 182, (see the end of the description,) may have been received as this plant; and it is remarkable, that the constriction of the gills has been mistaken both in Bulliard's excellent plates, and Batsch, who has conceived them branched. However, Linnæus says lamelis bifidis, but of A. betulinus lamellis ramcfis. Sp. Pl.