Fig. 43.Fig. 43.—Morchella gigaspora, from Kashmir.
Fig. 43.—Morchella gigaspora, from Kashmir.
Passing over the rest of the sporiferous fungi, we find amongst theAscomycetousgroup several that are highly esteemed. Amongst these may first be named the species of morel, which are regarded as delicacies wherever they are found.Morchella esculenta, Pers., is the most common species, but we have alsoMorchella semilibera, D. C., and the much largerMorchella crassipes, Pers. Probably all the species ofMorchellaare esculent, and we know that many besides the above are eaten in Europe and other places;Morchella deliciosa, Fr., in Java;Morchella bohemica, Kromb., in Bohemia;Morchella gigaspora, Cooke, andMorchella deliciosa, Fr., in Kashmere.[AC]Morchella rimosipes, D. C., occurs in France and Bohemia;MorchellaCaroliniana, Bosc., in the Southern United States of America. W. G. Smith records the occurrence in Britain of specimens ofMorchella crassipes, P., ten inches in height, and one specimen was eleven inches high, with a diameter of seven and a half inches.[AD]
Similar in uses, though differing in appearance, are the species ofHelvella, of which several are edible. In both these genera, the individuals can be dried so readily that they are the more valuable on that account, as they can be used for flavouring in winter when fresh specimens of any kind of fungus are difficult to procure. The most common English species isHelvella crispa, Fr., butHelvella lacunosa, Fr., is declared to be equally good, though not so large and somewhat rare.Helvella infula, Fr., is also a large species, but is not British, although it extends to North America, as also doesHelvella sulcata, Afz. Intermediate between the morel andHelvellais the species which was formerly included with the latter, but now known asGyromitra esculenta, Fr.[AE]It is rarely found in Great Britain, but is more common on the continent, where it is held in esteem. A curious stipitate fungus, with a pileus like a hood, calledVerpa digitaliformis, Pers.,[AF]is uncommon in England, but Vittadini states that it is sold in the Italian markets, although only to be recommended when no other esculent fungus offers, which is sometimes the case in spring.[AG]
Two or three species ofPezizahave the reputation of being esculent, but they are of very little value; one of these isPeziza acetabulum, L., another isPeziza cochleata, Huds., and a third isPeziza venosa, Pers.[AH]The latter has the most decided nitrous odour, and also fungoid flavour, whilst the former seem to have but little to recommend them; we have seen whole baskets full ofPeziza cochleatagathered in Northamptonshire as a substitute for morels.
A very interesting genus of edible fungi, growing on evergreenbeech trees in South America, has been namedCyttaria. One of these,Cyttaria Darwinii, B., occurs in Terra del Fuego, where it was found by Mr. C. Darwin[AI]growing in vast numbers, and forming a very essential article of food for the natives. Another isCyttaria Berteroi, B., also seen by Mr. Darwin in Chili, and eaten occasionally, but apparently not so good as the preceding.[AJ]Another species isCyttaria Gunnii, B., which abounds in Tasmania, and is held in repute amongst the settlers for its esculent properties.[AK]
Fig. 44.Fig. 44.—Cyttaria Gunnii, B.
Fig. 44.—Cyttaria Gunnii, B.
It remains for us only to note the subterranean fungi, of which the truffle is the type, to complete our enumeration of esculent species. The truffle which is consumed in England isTuber æstivum, Vitt.; but in France the more highly-flavouredTuber melanospermum, Vitt.,[AL]and alsoTuber magnatum, Pico, with some other species. In Italy they are very common, whilst some are found in Algeria. One species at least is recorded in the North-west of India, but in Northern Europe and North America they appear to be rare, andTerfezia Leonisis used as an esculent in Damascus. A large species ofMylitta, sometimes several inches in diameter, occurs plentifully in some parts of Australia. Although often included with fungi, the curious production known under the name ofPachyma cocos, Fr., is nota fungus, as proved by the examinations made by the Rev. M. J. Berkeley. It is eaten under the name of “Tuckahoe” in the United States, and as it consists almost entirely of pectic acid, it is sometimes used in the manufacture of jelly.
In the Neilgherries (S. India), a substance is occasionally found which is allied to the native bread of southern latitudes. It is found at an elevation of 5,000 feet. The natives call it “a little man’s bread,” in allusion to the tradition that the Neilgherries were once peopled by a race of dwarfs.[AM]At first it was supposed that these were the bulbs of some orchid, but later another view was held of their character. Mr. Scott, who examined the specimens sent down to him, remarks that, instead of being the product of orchids, it is that of an underground fungus of the genusMylitta. It indeed seems, he says, very closely allied to, if really distinct from, the so-called native bread of Tasmania.[AN]
Of the fungi employed in medicine, the first place must be assigned to ergot, which is the sclerotioid condition of a species ofClaviceps. It occurs not only on rye but on wheat, and many of the wild grasses. On account of its active principle, this fungus still holds its place in the Materia Medica. Others which formerly had a reputation are now discarded, as, for instance, the species ofElaphomyces; andPolyporus officinalis, Fr., which has been partly superseded as a styptic by other substances, was formerly employed as a purgative. The ripe spongy capillitium of the great puff-ballLycoperdon giganteum, Fr., has been used for similar purposes, and also recommended as an anodyne; indeed formidable surgical operations have been performed under its influence, and it is frequently used as a narcotic in the taking of honey. Langsdorf gives a curious account of its employment as a narcotic; and in a recent work on Kamtschatka it is said to obtain a very high price in that country. Dr. Porter Smith writes of its employment medicinally by the Chinese, but from his own specimens it is clearly a species ofPolysaccum, which he has mistaken forLycoperdon. In Chinaseveral species are supposed to possess great virtue, notably theTorrubia sinensis, Tul.,[AO]which is developed on dead caterpillars; as it is, however, recommended to administer it as a stuffing to roast duck, we may be sceptical as to its own sanitary qualities.Geaster hygrometricus, Fr., we have also detected amongst Chinese drugs, as also a species ofPolysaccum, and the small hardMylitta lapidescens, Horn. In India, a large but imperfect fungus, named provisionallySclerotium stipitatum, Curr., found in nests of the white ant, is supposed to possess great medicinal virtues.[AP]A species ofPolyporus(P. anthelminticus, B.), which grows at the root of old bamboos, is employed in Burmah as an anthelmintic.[AQ]In former times the Jew’s ear (Hirneola auricula Judæ, Fr.) was supposed to possess great virtues, which are now discredited. Yeast is still included amongst pharmaceutical substances, but could doubtless be very well dispensed with. Truffles are no longer regarded as aphrodisiacs.
For other uses, we can only allude to amadou, or German tinder, which is prepared in Northern Europe fromPolyporus fomentarius, Fr., cut in slices, dried, and beaten until it is soft. This substance, besides being used as tinder, is made into warm caps, chest protectors, and other articles. This same, or an allied species ofPolyporus, probablyP. igniarius, Fr., is dried and pounded as an ingredient in snuff by the Ostyacks on the Obi. In Bohemia some of the large Polyporei, such asP. igniariusandP. fomentarius, have the pores and part of the inner substance removed, and then the pileus is fastened in an inverted position to the wall, by the part where originally it adhered to the wood. The cavity is then filled with mould, and the fungus is used, with good effect, instead of flower-pots, for the cultivation of such creeping plants as require but little moisture.[AR]
The barren mycelioid condition ofPenicillium crustaceum,Fr., is employed in country districts for the domestic manufacture of vinegar from saccharine liquor, under the name of the “vinegar plant.” It is stated thatPolysaccum crassipes, D. C.,[AS]is employed in the South of Europe to produce a yellow dye; whilst recentlyPolyporus sulfureus, Fr., has been recommended for a similar purpose.Agaricus muscarius, Fr., the fly-agaric, known to be an active poison, is used in decoction in some parts of Europe for the destruction of flies and bugs. ProbablyHelotium æruginosum, Fr.,[AT]deserves mention here, because it stains the wood on which it grows, by means of its diffuse mycelium, of a beautiful green tint, and the wood thus stained is employed for its colour in the manufacture of Tonbridge ware.
This completes the list, certainly of the most important, of the fungi which are of any direct use to humanity as food, medicine, or in the arts. As compared with lichens, the advantage is certainly in favour of fungi; and even when compared with algæ, the balance appears in their favour. In fact, it may be questioned whether, after all, fungi do not present a larger proportion of really useful species than any other of the cryptogams; and without any desire to disparage the elegance of ferns, the delicacy of mosses, the brilliancy of some algæ, or the interest which attaches to lichens, it may be claimed for fungi that in real utility (not uncombined with injuries as real) they stand at the head of the cryptogams, and in closest alliance with the flowering plants.
[A]Badham, Dr. C. D., “A Treatise on the Esculent Funguses of England,” 1st edition (1847), p. 81, pl. 4; 2nd edition, edited by F. Currey, M.A. (1863), p. 94, pl. 4; Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Account of British Fungi,” 1st edition (1862), p. 44.[B]Mr. Worthington Smith has published, on two sheets, coloured figures of the most common esculent and poisonous fungi (London, Hardwicke), which will be found more useful than mere description in the discrimination of the species.[C]Roques, J., “Hist. des Champignons Comestibles et Vénéneux,” Paris (1832), p. 130.[D]Lenz, Dr. H. 0., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” Gotha (1831), p. 32, pl. 2.[E]Bull, H. G., in “Transactions of Woolhope Club” (1869). Fries admits them as distinct species in the new edition of his “Epicrisis.”[F]Hussey’s “Illustrations of Mycology,” ser. i. pl. 79.[G]Sowerby’s “British Fungi,” pl. 244.[H]Favre-Guillarmod, “Les Champignons Comestibles du Canton de Neuchatel” (1861), p. 27.[I]Sowerby, “English Fungi,” pl. 122; Smith, in “Seemann’s Journ. Bot.” (1866), t. 46, f. 45.[J]Klotsch, “Flora Borussica,” t. 374; Smith, in “Seem. Journ. Bot.” (1869), t. 95, f. 1–4.[K]Krombholz, “Abbildungen der Schwämme,” pl. 41, f. 1–7.[L]Tratinnick, L., “Fungi Austriaci,” p. 47, pl. 4, f. 8.[M]Vittadini, “Fungi Mangerecci,” pl. 23.[N]Cooke, in “Journal of Botany,” vol. viii. p. 352.[O]Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 38, pl. 6, fig. 1.[P]Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 8. Vittadini, “Mang.” t. 1.[Q]Vittadini, “Mangerecci,” t. 9.[R]Berkeley, “Outlines,” pl. 3, fig. 5.[S]Saunders and Smith, “Mycological Illustr.” pl. 23.[T]Cooke, M. C., “Handbook of British Fungi,” vol. i. pl. 1, fig. 2.[U]“Gardener’s Chronicle” (1869), p. 1066.[V]Berkeley, “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 64.[W]Cooke, “Easy Guide to British Fungi,” pl. 11.[X]Ibid., pl. 12.[Y]Hussey, “Mycol. Illust.” pl. 12.[Z]Bulliard, “Champ.” t. 268.[a]Cooke, “Easy Guide,” pl. 4, fig. 1; Hussey, “Illust.” vol. ii. pl. 40.[b]Greville, “Scot. Crypt. Flora,” t. 166.[c]Ibid., t. 91.[d]Sowerby, “Fungi,” pl. 56; Schæffer, “Icones Bav.” t. 72.[e]Trattinnick, L., “Die Essbaren Schwämme” (1809), p. 82, pl. M; Barla, J. B., “Champignons de la Nice” (1859), p. 34, pl. 19.[f]Smith, “Edible Mushrooms,” fig. 26.[g]Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 20, f. 4–10.[h]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci” (1835), p. 209; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” pl. i.[i]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 245; Roques, “Champ. Comest.” p. 86.[j]Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses of Britain,” 2nd ed. p. 110; Hussey, “Illust. Brit. Mycol.” 1st ser. pl. 4; Barla, “Champ.” pl. 28, f. 7–15.[k]Trattinnick, L., “Essbaren Schwämme,” p. 98.[l]Lenz, “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 49.[m]Badham, “Esculent Funguses of Great Britain,” 2 ed. p. 91.[n]Hussey, “Myc. Illus.” ii. pl. 25; Paulet, “Champ.” t. 170.[o]Barla, J. B., “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 71, pl. 35, f. 1–5.[p]Hussey, “Illustr.” ii. t. 17; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 32, f. 11–15.[q]Hussey, “Illustr.” i. t. 5; Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 76.[r]Badham’s “Esculent Funguses,” 1st ed. pp. 116 and 120.[s]Catalogue of Plants of Carolina, U.S.[t]Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses,” 2nd ed. p. 128; Hussey, “Illustrations,” 1st ser. pl. 65; Berkeley, in “Gard. Chron.” (1861), p. 121; Bull, in “Trans. Woolhope Club” (1869).[u]Barla, “Champ. Nice,” p. 79, pl. 38, f. 5, 6.[v]Roques, I. c. p. 48.[w]Lenz, p. 93; Roques, I. c. p. 47, pl. 2, fig. 5.[x]Lenz, H. O., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 93.[y]Berkeley, M. J., in “Intellectual Observer,” No. 25, pl. 1.[z]Berkeley, M. J., “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 293.[AA]Berkeley, M. J., “Introduction to Crypt. Bot.” p. 347.[AB]Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 96.[AC]Cooke, M. C., “On Kashmir Morels,” in “Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin.” vol. x. p. 439, with figs.[AD]Smith, “Journ. Bot.” vol. ix. p. 214.[AE]Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 322.[AF]Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 324.[AG]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 117.[AH]Greville, “Sc. Crypt. Fl.” pl. 156.[AI]Berkeley, in “Linn Trans.” xix. p. 37; Cooke, in “Technologist” (1864), p. 387.[AJ]Berkeley, M. J., in “Linn. Trans.” xix. p. 37.[AK]Berkeley, M. J., in “Hooker, Flora Antarctica,” p. 147; in “Hooker’s Journ. Bot.” (1848), 576, t. 20, 21.[AL]Vittadini, C., “Monographia Tuberacearum” (1831), pp. 36, &c.[AM]“Proceedings Agri. Hort. Soc. India” (Dec. 1871), p. lxxix.[AN]Ibid.(June, 1872), p. xxiii.[AO]Lindley, “Vegetable Kingdom,” fig. xxiv.[AP]Currey, F., in “Linn. Trans.” vol. xxiii. p. 93.[AQ]“Pharmacopœia of India,” p. 258.[AR]“Gard. Chron.” (1862), p. 21.[AS]Barla, “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 126, pl. 47, fig. 11.[AT]Greville, “Scott. Crypt. Flora,” pl. 241.
[A]Badham, Dr. C. D., “A Treatise on the Esculent Funguses of England,” 1st edition (1847), p. 81, pl. 4; 2nd edition, edited by F. Currey, M.A. (1863), p. 94, pl. 4; Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Account of British Fungi,” 1st edition (1862), p. 44.
Badham, Dr. C. D., “A Treatise on the Esculent Funguses of England,” 1st edition (1847), p. 81, pl. 4; 2nd edition, edited by F. Currey, M.A. (1863), p. 94, pl. 4; Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Account of British Fungi,” 1st edition (1862), p. 44.
[B]Mr. Worthington Smith has published, on two sheets, coloured figures of the most common esculent and poisonous fungi (London, Hardwicke), which will be found more useful than mere description in the discrimination of the species.
Mr. Worthington Smith has published, on two sheets, coloured figures of the most common esculent and poisonous fungi (London, Hardwicke), which will be found more useful than mere description in the discrimination of the species.
[C]Roques, J., “Hist. des Champignons Comestibles et Vénéneux,” Paris (1832), p. 130.
Roques, J., “Hist. des Champignons Comestibles et Vénéneux,” Paris (1832), p. 130.
[D]Lenz, Dr. H. 0., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” Gotha (1831), p. 32, pl. 2.
Lenz, Dr. H. 0., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” Gotha (1831), p. 32, pl. 2.
[E]Bull, H. G., in “Transactions of Woolhope Club” (1869). Fries admits them as distinct species in the new edition of his “Epicrisis.”
Bull, H. G., in “Transactions of Woolhope Club” (1869). Fries admits them as distinct species in the new edition of his “Epicrisis.”
[F]Hussey’s “Illustrations of Mycology,” ser. i. pl. 79.
Hussey’s “Illustrations of Mycology,” ser. i. pl. 79.
[G]Sowerby’s “British Fungi,” pl. 244.
Sowerby’s “British Fungi,” pl. 244.
[H]Favre-Guillarmod, “Les Champignons Comestibles du Canton de Neuchatel” (1861), p. 27.
Favre-Guillarmod, “Les Champignons Comestibles du Canton de Neuchatel” (1861), p. 27.
[I]Sowerby, “English Fungi,” pl. 122; Smith, in “Seemann’s Journ. Bot.” (1866), t. 46, f. 45.
Sowerby, “English Fungi,” pl. 122; Smith, in “Seemann’s Journ. Bot.” (1866), t. 46, f. 45.
[J]Klotsch, “Flora Borussica,” t. 374; Smith, in “Seem. Journ. Bot.” (1869), t. 95, f. 1–4.
Klotsch, “Flora Borussica,” t. 374; Smith, in “Seem. Journ. Bot.” (1869), t. 95, f. 1–4.
[K]Krombholz, “Abbildungen der Schwämme,” pl. 41, f. 1–7.
Krombholz, “Abbildungen der Schwämme,” pl. 41, f. 1–7.
[L]Tratinnick, L., “Fungi Austriaci,” p. 47, pl. 4, f. 8.
Tratinnick, L., “Fungi Austriaci,” p. 47, pl. 4, f. 8.
[M]Vittadini, “Fungi Mangerecci,” pl. 23.
Vittadini, “Fungi Mangerecci,” pl. 23.
[N]Cooke, in “Journal of Botany,” vol. viii. p. 352.
Cooke, in “Journal of Botany,” vol. viii. p. 352.
[O]Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 38, pl. 6, fig. 1.
Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 38, pl. 6, fig. 1.
[P]Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 8. Vittadini, “Mang.” t. 1.
Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 8. Vittadini, “Mang.” t. 1.
[Q]Vittadini, “Mangerecci,” t. 9.
Vittadini, “Mangerecci,” t. 9.
[R]Berkeley, “Outlines,” pl. 3, fig. 5.
Berkeley, “Outlines,” pl. 3, fig. 5.
[S]Saunders and Smith, “Mycological Illustr.” pl. 23.
Saunders and Smith, “Mycological Illustr.” pl. 23.
[T]Cooke, M. C., “Handbook of British Fungi,” vol. i. pl. 1, fig. 2.
Cooke, M. C., “Handbook of British Fungi,” vol. i. pl. 1, fig. 2.
[U]“Gardener’s Chronicle” (1869), p. 1066.
“Gardener’s Chronicle” (1869), p. 1066.
[V]Berkeley, “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 64.
Berkeley, “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 64.
[W]Cooke, “Easy Guide to British Fungi,” pl. 11.
Cooke, “Easy Guide to British Fungi,” pl. 11.
[X]Ibid., pl. 12.
Ibid., pl. 12.
[Y]Hussey, “Mycol. Illust.” pl. 12.
Hussey, “Mycol. Illust.” pl. 12.
[Z]Bulliard, “Champ.” t. 268.
Bulliard, “Champ.” t. 268.
[a]Cooke, “Easy Guide,” pl. 4, fig. 1; Hussey, “Illust.” vol. ii. pl. 40.
Cooke, “Easy Guide,” pl. 4, fig. 1; Hussey, “Illust.” vol. ii. pl. 40.
[b]Greville, “Scot. Crypt. Flora,” t. 166.
Greville, “Scot. Crypt. Flora,” t. 166.
[c]Ibid., t. 91.
Ibid., t. 91.
[d]Sowerby, “Fungi,” pl. 56; Schæffer, “Icones Bav.” t. 72.
Sowerby, “Fungi,” pl. 56; Schæffer, “Icones Bav.” t. 72.
[e]Trattinnick, L., “Die Essbaren Schwämme” (1809), p. 82, pl. M; Barla, J. B., “Champignons de la Nice” (1859), p. 34, pl. 19.
Trattinnick, L., “Die Essbaren Schwämme” (1809), p. 82, pl. M; Barla, J. B., “Champignons de la Nice” (1859), p. 34, pl. 19.
[f]Smith, “Edible Mushrooms,” fig. 26.
Smith, “Edible Mushrooms,” fig. 26.
[g]Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 20, f. 4–10.
Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 20, f. 4–10.
[h]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci” (1835), p. 209; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” pl. i.
Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci” (1835), p. 209; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” pl. i.
[i]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 245; Roques, “Champ. Comest.” p. 86.
Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 245; Roques, “Champ. Comest.” p. 86.
[j]Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses of Britain,” 2nd ed. p. 110; Hussey, “Illust. Brit. Mycol.” 1st ser. pl. 4; Barla, “Champ.” pl. 28, f. 7–15.
Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses of Britain,” 2nd ed. p. 110; Hussey, “Illust. Brit. Mycol.” 1st ser. pl. 4; Barla, “Champ.” pl. 28, f. 7–15.
[k]Trattinnick, L., “Essbaren Schwämme,” p. 98.
Trattinnick, L., “Essbaren Schwämme,” p. 98.
[l]Lenz, “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 49.
Lenz, “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 49.
[m]Badham, “Esculent Funguses of Great Britain,” 2 ed. p. 91.
Badham, “Esculent Funguses of Great Britain,” 2 ed. p. 91.
[n]Hussey, “Myc. Illus.” ii. pl. 25; Paulet, “Champ.” t. 170.
Hussey, “Myc. Illus.” ii. pl. 25; Paulet, “Champ.” t. 170.
[o]Barla, J. B., “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 71, pl. 35, f. 1–5.
Barla, J. B., “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 71, pl. 35, f. 1–5.
[p]Hussey, “Illustr.” ii. t. 17; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 32, f. 11–15.
Hussey, “Illustr.” ii. t. 17; Barla, “Champ. Nice,” t. 32, f. 11–15.
[q]Hussey, “Illustr.” i. t. 5; Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 76.
Hussey, “Illustr.” i. t. 5; Krombholz, “Schwämme,” t. 76.
[r]Badham’s “Esculent Funguses,” 1st ed. pp. 116 and 120.
Badham’s “Esculent Funguses,” 1st ed. pp. 116 and 120.
[s]Catalogue of Plants of Carolina, U.S.
Catalogue of Plants of Carolina, U.S.
[t]Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses,” 2nd ed. p. 128; Hussey, “Illustrations,” 1st ser. pl. 65; Berkeley, in “Gard. Chron.” (1861), p. 121; Bull, in “Trans. Woolhope Club” (1869).
Badham, Dr., “Esculent Funguses,” 2nd ed. p. 128; Hussey, “Illustrations,” 1st ser. pl. 65; Berkeley, in “Gard. Chron.” (1861), p. 121; Bull, in “Trans. Woolhope Club” (1869).
[u]Barla, “Champ. Nice,” p. 79, pl. 38, f. 5, 6.
Barla, “Champ. Nice,” p. 79, pl. 38, f. 5, 6.
[v]Roques, I. c. p. 48.
Roques, I. c. p. 48.
[w]Lenz, p. 93; Roques, I. c. p. 47, pl. 2, fig. 5.
Lenz, p. 93; Roques, I. c. p. 47, pl. 2, fig. 5.
[x]Lenz, H. O., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 93.
Lenz, H. O., “Die Nützlichen und Schädlichen Schwämme,” p. 93.
[y]Berkeley, M. J., in “Intellectual Observer,” No. 25, pl. 1.
Berkeley, M. J., in “Intellectual Observer,” No. 25, pl. 1.
[z]Berkeley, M. J., “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 293.
Berkeley, M. J., “Outlines of British Fungology,” p. 293.
[AA]Berkeley, M. J., “Introduction to Crypt. Bot.” p. 347.
Berkeley, M. J., “Introduction to Crypt. Bot.” p. 347.
[AB]Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 96.
Cooke, M. C., “A Plain and Easy Guide,” &c., p. 96.
[AC]Cooke, M. C., “On Kashmir Morels,” in “Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin.” vol. x. p. 439, with figs.
Cooke, M. C., “On Kashmir Morels,” in “Trans. Bot. Soc. Edin.” vol. x. p. 439, with figs.
[AD]Smith, “Journ. Bot.” vol. ix. p. 214.
Smith, “Journ. Bot.” vol. ix. p. 214.
[AE]Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 322.
Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 322.
[AF]Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 324.
Cooke, “Handbook,” fig. 324.
[AG]Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 117.
Vittadini, C., “Funghi Mangerecci,” p. 117.
[AH]Greville, “Sc. Crypt. Fl.” pl. 156.
Greville, “Sc. Crypt. Fl.” pl. 156.
[AI]Berkeley, in “Linn Trans.” xix. p. 37; Cooke, in “Technologist” (1864), p. 387.
Berkeley, in “Linn Trans.” xix. p. 37; Cooke, in “Technologist” (1864), p. 387.
[AJ]Berkeley, M. J., in “Linn. Trans.” xix. p. 37.
Berkeley, M. J., in “Linn. Trans.” xix. p. 37.
[AK]Berkeley, M. J., in “Hooker, Flora Antarctica,” p. 147; in “Hooker’s Journ. Bot.” (1848), 576, t. 20, 21.
Berkeley, M. J., in “Hooker, Flora Antarctica,” p. 147; in “Hooker’s Journ. Bot.” (1848), 576, t. 20, 21.
[AL]Vittadini, C., “Monographia Tuberacearum” (1831), pp. 36, &c.
Vittadini, C., “Monographia Tuberacearum” (1831), pp. 36, &c.
[AM]“Proceedings Agri. Hort. Soc. India” (Dec. 1871), p. lxxix.
“Proceedings Agri. Hort. Soc. India” (Dec. 1871), p. lxxix.
[AN]Ibid.(June, 1872), p. xxiii.
Ibid.(June, 1872), p. xxiii.
[AO]Lindley, “Vegetable Kingdom,” fig. xxiv.
Lindley, “Vegetable Kingdom,” fig. xxiv.
[AP]Currey, F., in “Linn. Trans.” vol. xxiii. p. 93.
Currey, F., in “Linn. Trans.” vol. xxiii. p. 93.
[AQ]“Pharmacopœia of India,” p. 258.
“Pharmacopœia of India,” p. 258.
[AR]“Gard. Chron.” (1862), p. 21.
“Gard. Chron.” (1862), p. 21.
[AS]Barla, “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 126, pl. 47, fig. 11.
Barla, “Champ. de la Nice,” p. 126, pl. 47, fig. 11.
[AT]Greville, “Scott. Crypt. Flora,” pl. 241.
Greville, “Scott. Crypt. Flora,” pl. 241.
V.NOTABLE PHENOMENA.
There are no phenomena associated with fungi that are of greater interest than those which relate to luminosity. The fact that fungi under some conditions are luminous has long been known, since schoolboys in our juvenile days were in the habit of secreting fragments of rotten wood penetrated by mycelium, in order to exhibit their luminous properties in the dark, and thus astonish their more ignorant or incredulous fellows Rumphius noted its appearance in Amboyna, and Fries, in his Observations, gives the name ofThelephora phosphoreato a species ofCorticiumnow known asCorticium cæruleum, on account of its phosphorescence under certain conditions. The same species is theAuricularia phosphoreaof Sowerby, but he makes no note of its phosphorescence. Luminosity in fungi “has been observed in various parts of the world, and where the species has been fully developed it has been generally a species ofAgaricuswhich has yielded the phenomenon.”[A]One of the best-known species is theAgaricus oleariusof the South of Europe, which was examined by Tulasne with especial view to its luminosity.[B]In his introductory remarks, he says that four species only of Agaricus that are luminous appear at present to be known. One of them,A. olearius, D. C., is indigenous to Central Europe; another,A. igneus, Rumph., comes from Amboyna; the third,A. noctileucus, Lév., has been discoveredat Manilla by Gaudichaud, in 1836; the last,A. Gardneri, Berk., is produced in the Brazilian province of Goyaz, upon dead leaves. As to theDematium violaceum, Pers., theHimantia candida, Pers., cited once by Link, and theThelephora cærulea, D. C.(Corticium cæruleum, Fr.), Tulasne is of opinion that their phosphorescent properties are still problematical; at least no recent observation confirms them.
The phosphorescence ofA. olearius, D. C., appears to have been first made known by De Candolle, but it seems that he was in error in stating that these phosphorescent properties manifest themselves only at the time of its decomposition. Fries, describing theCladosporium umbrinum, which lives upon the Agaric of the olive-tree, expressed the opinion that the Agaric only owes its phosphorescence to the presence of the mould. This, however, Tulasne denies, for he writes, “I have had the opportunity of observing that the Agaric of the olive is really phosphorescent of itself, and that it is not indebted to any foreign production for the light it emits.” Like Delile, he considers that the fungus is only phosphorescent up to the time when it ceases to grow; thus the light which it projects, one might say, is a manifestation of its vegetation.
“It is an important fact,” writes Tulasne, “which I can confirm, and which it is important to insist upon, that the phosphorescence is not exclusively confined to the hymenial surface. Numerous observations made by me prove that the whole of the substance of the fungus participates very frequently, if not always, in the faculty of shining in the dark. Among the first Agarics which I examined, I found many, the stipe of which shed here and there a light as brilliant as the hymenium, and led me to think that it was due to the spores which had fallen on the surface of the stipe. Therefore, being in the dark, I scraped with my scalpel the luminous parts of the stipe, but it did not sensibly diminish their brightness; then I split the stipe, bruised it, divided it into small fragments, and I found that the whole of this mass, even in its deepest parts, enjoyed, in a similar degree to its superficies, the property of light. I found, besides, a phosphorescence quite as brilliant in all the cap, for,having split it vertically in the form of plates, I found that the trama, when bruised, threw out a light equal to that of their fructiferous surfaces, and there is really only the superior surface of the pileus, or its cuticle, which I have never seen luminous.
“As I have said, the Agaric of the olive-tree, which is itself very yellow, reflects a strong brilliant light, and remains endowed with this remarkable faculty whilst it grows, or, at least, while it appears to preserve an active life, and remains fresh. The phosphorescence is at first, and more ordinarily, recognizable at the surface of the hymenium. I have seen a great number of young fungi which were very phosphorescent in the gills, but not in any other part. In another case, and amongst more aged fungi, the hymenium of which had ceased to give light, the stipe, on the contrary, threw out a brilliant glare. Habitually, the phosphorescence is distributed in an unequal manner upon the stipe, and the same upon the gills. Although the stipe is luminous at its surface, it is not always necessarily so in its interior substance, if one bruises it, but this substance frequently becomes phosphorescent after contact with the air. Thus, I had irregularly split and slit a large stipe in its length, and I found the whole flesh obscure, whilst on the exterior were some luminous places. I roughly joined the lacerated parts, and the following evening, on observing them anew, I found them all flashing a bright light. At another time, I had with a scalpel split vertically many fungi in order to hasten their dessication; the evening of the same day, the surface of all these cuts was phosphorescent, but in many of these pieces of fungi the luminosity was limited to the cut surface which remained exposed to the air; the flesh beneath was unchanged.
“I have seen a stipe opened and lacerated irregularly, the whole of the flesh of which remained phosphorescent during three consecutive evenings, but the brightness diminished in intensity from the exterior to the interior, so that on the third day it did not issue from the inner part of the stipe. The phosphorescence of the gills is in no way modified at first by immersing the fungus in water; when they have been immersedthey are as bright as in the air, but the fungi which I left immersed until the next evening lost all their phosphorescence, and communicated to the water an already sensible yellow tint; alcohol put upon the phosphorescent gills did not at once completely obliterate the light, but visibly enfeebled it. As to the spores, which are white, I have found many times very dense coats of them thrown down on porcelain plates, but I have never seen them phosphorescent.
“As to the observation made by Delile that the Agaric of the olive does not shine during the day when placed in total darkness, I think that it could not have been repeated. From what I have said of the phosphorescence ofA. olearius, one naturally concludes that there does not exist any necessary relation between this phenomenon and the fructification of the fungus; the luminous brightness of the hymenium shows, says Delile, ‘the greater activity of the reproductive organs,’ but it is not in consequence of its reproductive functions, which may be judged only as an accessory phenomenon, the cause of which is independent of, and more general than these functions, since all the parts of the fungus, its entire substance, throws forth at one time, or at successive times, light. From these experiments Tulasne infers that the same agents, oxygen, water, and warmth, are perfectly necessary to the production of phosphorescence as much in living organized beings as in those which have ceased to live. In either case, the luminous phenomena accompany a chemical reaction which consists principally in a combination of the organized matter with the oxygen of the air; that is to say, in its combustion, and in the discharge of carbonic acid which thus shows itself.”
We have quoted at considerable length from these observations of Tulasne on the Agaric of the olive, as they serve very much to illustrate similar manifestations in other species, which doubtless resemble each other in their main features.
Mr. Gardner has graphically described his first acquaintance in Brazil with the phosphorescent species which now bears his name. It was encountered on a dark night of December, while passing through the streets of Villa de Natividate. Some boyswere amusing themselves with some luminous object, which at first he supposed to be a kind of large fire-fly, but on making inquiry he found it to be a beautiful phosphorescent Agaric, which he was told grew abundantly in the neighbourhood on the decaying fronds of a dwarf palm. The whole plant gives out at night a bright light somewhat similar to that emitted by the larger fire-flies, having a pale greenish hue. From this circumstance, and from growing on a palm, it was called by the inhabitants “flor de coco.”[C]
The number of recognized phosphorescent species ofAgaricusis not large, although two or three others may be enumerated in addition to those cited by Tulasne. Of these,Agaricus lampas, and some others, are found in Australia.[D]In addition to theAgaricus noctileucus, discovered by Gaudichaud, and theAgaricus igneusof Rumphius, found in Amboyna, Dr. Hooker speaks of the phenomenon as common in Sikkim, but he seems never to have been able to ascertain with what species it was associated.
Dr. Cuthbert Collingwood has communicated some further information relative to the luminosity of a species ofAgaricusin Borneo (supposed to beA. Gardneri), in which he says, “The night being dark, the fungi could be very distinctly seen, though not at any great distance, shining with a soft pale greenish light. Here and there spots of much more intense light were visible, and these proved to be very young and minute specimens. The older specimens may more properly be described as possessing a greenish luminous glow, like the glow of the electric discharge, which, however, was quite sufficient to define its shape, and, when closely examined, the chief details of its form and appearance. The luminosity did not impart itself to the hand, and did not appear to be affected by the separation from the root on which it grew, at least not for some hours. I think it probable that the mycelium of this fungus is also luminous, for, upon turning up the ground in search of small luminous worms, minute spots of light wereobserved, which could not be referred to any particular object or body when brought to the light and examined, and were probably due to some minute portions of its mycelium.”[E]The same writer also adds, “Mr. Hugh Low has assured me that he saw the jungle all in a blaze of light (by which he could see to read) as, some years ago, he was riding across the island by the jungle road; and that this luminosity was produced by an Agaric.”
Similar experiences were detailed by Mr. James Drummond in a letter from Swan River, in which two species of Agaric are concerned. They grew on the stumps of trees, and had nothing remarkable in their appearance by day, but by night emitted a most curious light, such as the writer never saw described in any book. One species was found growing on the stump of aBanksiain Western Australia. The stump was at the time surrounded by water. It was on a dark night, when passing, that the curious light was first observed. When the fungus was laid on a newspaper, it emitted by night a phosphorescent light, enabling persons to read the words around it, and it continued to do so for several nights with gradually decreasing intensity as the plant dried up. In the other instance, which occurred some years after, the author, during one of his botanical trips, was struck by the appearance of a large Agaric, measuring sixteen inches in diameter, and weighing about five pounds. This specimen was hung up to dry in the sitting-room, and on passing through the apartment in the dark it was observed to give out the same remarkable light. The luminous property continued, though gradually diminishing, for four or five nights, when it ceased on the plant becoming dry. “We called some of the natives,” he adds, “and showed them this fungus when emitting light, and the poor creatures cried out ‘chinga,’ their name for a spirit, and seemed much afraid of it.”[F]
Although the examples already cited are those of species of Agaric, luminosity is not by any means wholly confined to thatgenus. Mr. Worthington Smith has recorded his experiences of some specimens of the commonPolyporus annosuswhich were found on some timbers in the Cardiff coal mines. He remarks that the colliers are well acquainted with phosphorescent fungi, and the men state that sufficient light is given “to see their hands by.” The specimens ofPolyporuswere so luminous that they could be seen in the dark at a distance of twenty yards. He observes further, that he has met with specimens ofPolyporus sulfureuswhich were phosphorescent. Some of the fungi found in mines, which emit light familiar to the miners, belong to the incomplete genusRhizomorpha, of which Humboldt amongst others gives a glowing account. Tulasne has also investigated this phenomenon in connection with the commonRhizomorpha subterranea, Pers. This species extends underneath the soil in long strings, in the neighbourhood of old tree stumps, those of the oak especially, which are becoming rotten, and upon these it is fixed by one of its branches. These are cylindrical, very flexible, branching, and clothed with a hard bark, encrusting and fragile, at first smooth and brown, becoming later very rough and black. The interior tissue, at first whitish, afterwards of a more or less deep brown colour, is formed of extremely long parallel filaments from .0035 to .015mm.in diameter.
On the evening of the day when I received the specimens,[G]he writes, the temperature being about 22° Cent., all the young branches brightened with an uniform phosphoric light the whole of their length; it was the same with the surface of some of the older branches, the greater number of which were still brilliant in some parts, and only on their surface. I split and lacerated many of these twigs, but their internal substance remained dull. The next evening, on the contrary, this substance, having been exposed to contact with the air, exhibited at its surface the same brightness as the bark of the branches. I made this observation upon the old stalks as well as upon the young ones. Prolonged friction of the luminous surfaces reduced the brightnessand dried them to a certain degree, but did not leave on the fingers any phosphorescent matter. These parts continued with the same luminous intensity after holding them in the mouth so as to moisten them with saliva; plunged into water, held to the flame of a candle so that the heat they acquired was very appreciable to the touch, they still emitted in the dark a feeble light; it was the same after being held in water heated to 30° C.; but putting them in water bearing a temperature of 55° C. extinguished them entirely. They are equally extinguished if held in the mouth until they catch the temperature; perhaps, still, it might be attributed less to the heat which is communicated to them than to the deficiency of sufficient oxygen, because I have seen some stalks, having become dull in the mouth, recover after a few instants a little of their phosphorescence. A young stalk which had been split lengthwise, and the internal substance of which was very phosphorescent, could imbibe olive oil many times and yet continue for a long time to give a feeble light. By preserving theseRhizomorphæin an adequate state of humidity, I have been able for many evenings to renew the examination of their phosphorescence; the commencement of dessication, long before they really perish, deprives them of the faculty of giving light. Those which had been dried for more than a month, when plunged into water, commenced to vegetate anew and send forth numerous branches in a few days; but I could only discover phosphorescence at the surface of these new formations, or very rarely in their immediate neighbourhood, the mother stalks appearing to have lost by dessication their luminous properties, and did not recover them on being recalled to life. These observations prove that what Schmitz has written was not true, that all parts of these fungi were seldom phosphorescent.
The luminous phenomenon in question is without doubt more complicated than it appears, and the causes to which we attribute it are certainly powerfully modified by the general character of the objects in which they reside. Most of the German botanists give this explanation, others suppose that it forms at first or during its continuance a special matter, in which theluminous property resides; this matter, which is said to be mucilaginous in the luminous wood, appears to be in theRhizomorphaonly a kind of chemical combination between the membrane and some gummy substance which they contain. Notwithstanding this opinion, I am assured that all external mucous matter was completely absent from theAgaricus olearius, and I neither discovered it upon the branches ofRhizomorpha subterraneanor upon the dead leaves which I have seen phosphorescent; in all these objects the luminous surfaces were nothing else than their proper tissue.
It may be remarked here that the so-called species ofRhizomorphaare imperfect fungi, being entirely devoid of fructification, consisting in fact only of a vegetative system—a sort of compact mycelium—(probably of species ofXylaria) with some affinity toSclerotium.
Recently an extraordinary instance of luminosity was recorded as occurring in our own country.[H]“A quantity of wood had been purchased in a neighbouring parish, which was dragged up a very steep hill to its destination. Amongst them was a log of larch or spruce, it is not quite certain which, 24 feet long and a foot in diameter. Some young friends happened to pass up the hill at night, and were surprised to find the road scattered with luminous patches, which, when more closely examined, proved to be portions of bark or little fragments of wood. Following the track, they came to a blaze of white light which was perfectly surprising. On examination, it appeared that the whole of the inside of the bark of the log was covered with a white byssoid mycelium of a peculiarly strong smell, but unfortunately in such a state that the perfect form could not be ascertained. This was luminous, but the light was by no means so bright as in those parts of the wood where the spawn had penetrated more deeply, and where it was so intense that the roughest treatment scarcely seemed to check it. If any attempt was made to rub off the luminous matter it only shone the more brightly, and when wrapped up in five folds of paper the light penetrated through all the folds on either side as brightly as if the specimen was exposed; when,again, the specimens were placed in the pocket, the pocket when opened was a mass of light. The luminosity had now been going on for three days. Unfortunately we did not see it ourselves till the third day, when it had, possibly from a change in the state of electricity, been somewhat impaired; but it was still most interesting, and we have merely recorded what we observed ourselves. It was almost possible to read the time on the face of a watch even in its less luminous condition. We do not for a moment suppose that the mycelium is essentially luminous, but are rather inclined to believe that a peculiar concurrence of climatic conditions is necessary for the production of the phenomenon, which is certainly one of great rarity. Observers as we have been of fungi in their native haunts for fifty years, it has never fallen to our lot to witness a similar case before, though Prof. Churchill Babington once sent us specimens of luminous wood, which had, however, lost their luminosity before they arrived. It should be observed that the parts of the wood which were most luminous were not only deeply penetrated by the more delicate parts of the mycelium, but were those which were most decomposed. It is probable, therefore, that this fact is an element in the case as well as the presence of fungoid matter.”
In all cases of phosphorescence recorded, the light emitted is described as of the same character, varying only in intensity. It answers well to the name applied to it, as it seems remarkably similar to the light emitted by some living insects and other animal organisms, as well as to that evolved, under favourable conditions, by dead animal matter—a pale bluish light, resembling that emitted by phosphorus as seen in a dark room.
Another phenomenon worthy of note is the change of colour which the bruised or cut surface of some fungi undergo. Most prominent amongst these are certain poisonous species ofBoletus, such, for instance, asBoletus luridus, and some others, which, on being bruised, cut, or divided, exhibit an intense, and in some cases vivid, blue. At times this change is so instantaneous that before the two freshly-cut portions of aBoletuscan be separated, it has already commenced, andproceeds rapidly till the depth of intensity has been gained. This blue colour is so universally confined to dangerous species that it is given as a caution that all species which exhibit a blue colour when cut or bruised, should on no account be eaten. The degree of intensity varies considerably according to the condition of the species. For example,Boletus cærulescensis sometimes only very slightly, if at all, tinged with blue when cut, though, as the name implies, the peculiar phenomenon is generally highly developed. It cannot be said that this change of colour has as yet been fully investigated. One writer some time since suggested, if he did not affirm, that the colour was due to the presence of aniline, others have contented themselves with the affirmation that it was a rapid oxidization and chemical change, consequent upon exposure of the surfaces to the air. Archdeacon Robinson examined this phenomenon in different gases, and arrived at the conclusion that the change depends on an alteration of molecular arrangement.[I]
One of the best of the edible species ofLactarius, known asLactarius deliciosus, changes, wherever cut or bruised, to a dull livid green. This fungus is filled with an orange milky fluid, which becomes green on exposure to the air, and it is consequently the juice which oxidizes on exposure. Some varieties more than others of the cultivated mushroom become brownish on being cut, and a similar change we have observed, though not recorded, in other species.
The presence of a milky juice in certain fungi has been alluded to. This is by no means confined to the genusLactarius, in which such juice is universal, sometimes white, sometimes yellow, and sometimes colourless. In Agarics, especially in the subgenusMycena, the gills and stem are replete with a milky juice. Also in some species ofPeziza, as for instance inPeziza succosa, B., sometimes found growing on the ground in gardens, and inPeziza saniosa, Schrad., also a terrestrial species, the same phenomenon occurs. To this might be added such species asStereum spadiceum, Fr., andStereum sanguinolentum,Fr., both of which become discoloured and bleeding when bruised, whileCorticium lactescensdistils a watery milk.
Fungi in general have not a good repute for pleasant odours, and yet it must be conceded that they are not by any means devoid of odour, sometimes peculiar, often strong, and occasionally very offensive. There is a peculiar odour common to a great many forms, which has come to be called a fungoid odour; it is the faint smell of a long-closed damp cellar, an odour of mouldiness and decay, which often arises from a process of eremocausis. But there are other, stronger, and equally distinct odours, which, when once inhaled, are never to be forgotten. Amongst these is the fetid odour of the common stinkhorn, which is intensified in the more beautiful and curiousClathrus. It is very probable that, after all, the odour of thePhalluswould not be so unpleasant if it were not so strong. It is not difficult to imagine, when one encounters a slight sniff borne on a passing breeze, that there is the element of something not by any means unpleasant about the odour when so diluted; yet it must be confessed that when carried in a vasculum, in a close carriage, or railway car, or exposed in a close room, there is no scruple about pronouncing the odour intensely fetid. The experience of more than one artist, who has attempted the delineation ofClathrusfrom the life, is to the effect that the odour is unbearable even by an enthusiastic artist determined on making a sketch.
Perhaps one of the most fetid of fungi isThelephora palmata. Some specimens were on one occasion taken by Mr. Berkeley into his bedroom at Aboyne, when, after an hour or two, he was horrified at finding the scent far worse than that of any dissecting room. He was anxious to save the specimens, but the scent was so powerful that it was quite intolerable till he had wrapped them in twelve thick folds of the strongest brown paper. The scent ofThelephora fastidiosais bad enough, but, like that ofCoprinus picaceus, it is probably derived from the imbibition of the ordure on which it is developed. There needs no stronger evidence that the scent must not only be powerful, but unpleasant, when an artist is compelled, before a rough sketch is more than half finished, to throw it away, and seek relief in the open air. A greatnumber of edible Agarics have the peculiar odour of fresh meal, but two species,Agaricus odorusandAgaricus fragrans, have a pleasant anise-like odour. In two or three species of toughHydnum, there is a strong persistent odour somewhat like melilot or woodruffe, which does not pass away after the specimen has been dried for years. In some species ofMarasmius, there is a decidedly strong odour of garlic, and in one species ofHygrophorus, such a resemblance to that of the larva of the goat moth, that it bears the name ofHygrophorus cossus. Most of the fleshy forms exhale a strong nitrous odour during decay, but the most powerful we remember to have experienced was developed by a very large specimen ofChoiromyces meandriformis, a gigantic subterranean species of the truffle kind, and this specimen was four inches in diameter when found, and then partially decayed. It was a most peculiar, but strong and unpleasantly pungent nitrous odour, such as we never remember to have met with in any other substance.Peziza venosais remarkable when fresh for a strong scent like that of aquafortis.
Of colour, fungi exhibit an almost endless variety, from white, through ochraceous, to all tints of brown until nearly black, or through sulphury yellow to reds of all shades, deepening into crimson, or passing by vinous tints into purplish black. These are the predominating gradations, but there are occasional blues and mineral greens, passing into olive, but no pure or chlorophyllous green. The nearest approach to the latter is found in the hymenium of someBoleti. Some of the Agarics exhibit bright colours, but the larger number of bright-coloured species occur in the genusPeziza. Nothing can be more elegant than the orange cups ofPeziza aurantia, the glowing crimson ofPeziza coccinea, the bright scarlet ofPeziza rutilans, the snowy whiteness ofPeziza nivea, the delicate yellow ofPeziza theleboloides, or the velvety brown ofPeziza repanda. Amongst Agarics, the most nobleAgaricus muscarius, with its warty crimson pileus, is scarcely eclipsed by the continental orangeAgaricus cæsarius. The amethystine variety ofAgaricus laccatusis so common and yet so attractive; whilst some forms andspeciesRussulaare gems of brilliant colouring. The golden tufts of more than one species ofClavariaare exceedingly attractive, and the delicate pink of immatureLycogala epidendrumis sure to command admiration. The minute forms which require the microscope, as much to exhibit their colour as their structure, are not wanting in rich and delicate tints, so that the colour-student would find much to charm him, and good practice for his pencil in these much despised examples of low life.
Amongst phenomena might be cursorily mentioned the peculiar sarcodioid mycelium ofMyxogastres, the development of amœboid forms from their spores, and the extraordinary rapidity of growth, as the well-known instance of theReticulariawhich Schweinitz observed running over iron a few hours after it had been red hot. Mr. Berkeley has observed that the creamy mycelium ofLycogalawill not revive after it has become dry for a few hours, though so active before.