Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 66. (Budapest 1974)

Babos, M.: Studies on Hungarian Lepiota s. l. species, IV.

In November 1969 a form having brownly squamous disrupting cuticle of this species was collected in Budapest. The pileus was so coloured that the specimen may be considered as one of the extreme forms of M. excoriata. The colour of the brownest specimens was the same as that of Lepiota excoriata illustrated by BARLA (1889, Tab 10. Fig. 5—8) an this offered grounds for separating them under the name, forma barlae from the light-coloured frequent M. excoriata. Differences from the species: Pileus white-whitish-creamybrownish, but covered with finer or coarser brown squamae, middle smooth, brown. Species t y pic a differt: Pileus albus-albidus-cremeus-brumieolus, sed leniter vel asperius brunneo-squamosus, in medio levis, brunneus. Similis figuráé Lepiotae excoriatae a BARLA depictae (Les champignons des Alpes-Maritimes. Gen. II. Lepiota, 1889, Tab. 10. Fig. 5—8), pileum squamis brunneis ornatum habenti. Typus: Nr. 49.140, in Herbario Musei Historico-Naturalis Hungarici, Budapest. Habitatio: Budapest, in horto, in acervo sterquilino 17. Nov. 1969, leg.? Notes — Perhaps to a habitat rich in organic compounds is related the phenomenon, that a number of the fungi was definitely fleshy, further that also the shape of the pileus differed from that of M. excoriata, and, on the whole, from that shape which is characteristic of the Macrolepiota species. The shapes of most specimens were reminiscent of Agaricus, the middle was not gibbous, moreover, specimens with depressed centers also occurred. The collector thought them to be white-gilled Agaricus. Gibbous fruit-bodies were, however, also found in the material, and therefore the difference in the shape of pileus is not a constant, not a diagnostic character. Macrolepiota rhacodes (VITT.) SING. var. hortensis PILÂT There are more than one data on the Czeehoslovakian occurrence of this fungus growing on compost. It was excellently illustrated by PILÂT (1951, photo 601 — 606, 608), PILÂT & USÁK (without date of year, PI. Ill) and DERMEK (1970). Its occurrence in Germany was reported by MICHAEL & HENNIG(1964, Fig. 16). It is very likely that the fungus published by SAVONIUS (1973) from the U. S. A. may also be taken for var. hortensis. He published a coloured photo taken in a pine wood, illustrating its mass occurrence on heaped up fragments of wood gnawn asunder by ants. Herbarial data: Budapest : Soroksár-Péterimajor, on a heap of compost in th Botanic Garden of the University of Horticulture, 11 Sept. 1972, leg. BABOS — RIMÓCZI (it used to grow on this spot during 1971 — 1973 and was collected there by RIMÓCZI on more than one occasion) — Budapest, Pestlőrinc, in garden, on compost, 10 Sept. 1970, leg. VELCZEI — Szarvas, Com. Békés, on heaps of pine-needles under Taxus baccata in the Arboretum of Pepi Garden, 18 Oct. 1970, leg. GALAMBOS. The Lepiota bohemica described by WICHANSKY (1961a) is identical to M. rhacodes var. hortensis, yet according to WICHANSKY (1972) it is right to retain the L. bohemica species. He cannot, namely, regard this species as a variety of M

. rhacodes because of: 1. the unusual shape of the fruit-bodies, 2. the size of the spores, 3. the wide, funnel-shaped ring. In connection with that the following observation is made on the basis of the Hungarian collection: 1. On Sept. 11. also the typical M

. rhacodes were collected on a heap of compost in Péterimajor, besides large-bulbed, wide-ringed typical M. rhacodes var.