Introduction

A prominent botanical authority connected with one of our universities,

upon learning of my intention of perpetrating a popular work on our

edible mushrooms and toadstools, was inclined to take issue with me

on the wisdom of such publication, giving as his reasons that, owing

to the extreme difficulty of imparting exact scientific knowledge

to the "general reader," such a work, in its presumably imperfect

interpretation by the very individuals it is intended to benefit, would

only result, in many instances, in supplanting the popular wholesome

distrust of all mushrooms with a rash over-confidence which would tend

to increase the labors of the family physician and the coroner. And, to

a certain extent, in its appreciation of the difficulty of imparting

exact science to the lay mind, his criticism was entirely reasonable,

and would certainly apply to any treatise on edible mushrooms for

popular circulation which contemplated a too extensive field, involving

subtle botanical analysis and nice differentiation between species.

[Sidenote: =Identification of fatal species=]

But when we realize the fact--now generally conceded--that most of the

fatalities consequent upon mushroom-eating are directly traceable to

one particular tempting group of fungi, and that this group is moreover

so distinctly marked that a _tyro_ could _learn_ to distinguish it,

might not such a popular work, in its emphasis by careful portraiture

and pictorial analysis of this deadly genus--placarding it so clearly

and unmistakably as to make it readily recognizable--might not such a

work, to that extent at least, accomplish a public service?

[Sidenote: =Conservative mycology=]

Moreover, even the most conservative mycologist will certainly admit

that out of the hundred and fifty of our admittedly esculent species

of fungi there might be segregated a few which bear such conspicuous

characters of outward form and other unique individual features--such

as color of spores, gills, and tubes, taste, odor, surface character,

color of milky juice, etc.--as to render them easily recognizable even

by the "general reader."

It is in the positive, affirmative assumption of these premises that

the present work is prepared, comprising as it does a selection of a

score or more, as it were, self-placarded esculent species of fungi,

while putting the reader safely on guard against the fatal species and

a few other more or less poisonous or suspicious varieties which remote

possibility might confound with them.

[Sidenote: =Popular interest in mushrooms=]

Since the publication of a recent magazine article on this topic, and

which became the basis of the present elaboration, I have been favored

with a numerous and almost continuous correspondence upon mushrooms,

including letters from every State in the Union, to say nothing of

Canada and New Mexico, evincing the wide-spread interest in the fungus

from the gustatory point of view. The cautious tone of most of these

letters, in the main from neophyte mycologists, is gratifying in its

demonstration of the wisdom of my position in this volume, or, as one

of my correspondents puts it, "the frightening of one to death at the

outset while extending an invitation to the feast." "Death was often

a consequence of toadstool eating," my friend continued, "but I never

before realized that it was a _certain_ result with _any_ particular

mushroom, and to the extent of this information I am profoundly

thankful."

[Sidenote: =Caution at the threshold=]

While, then, from the point of view of desired popularity of my book,

the grim greeting of a death's-head upon the frontispiece might be

considered as something of a handicap, the author confesses that this

attitude is the result of "malice prepense" and deliberation, realizing

that he is not offering to the "lay public," for mere intellectual

profit, this scientific analysis of certain fungus species. Were this

alone the _raison d'être_ or the logical outcome of the work--mere

_identification_ of edible and poisonous species--the grewsome symbol

which is so conspicuous on two of my pages might have been spared. But

when it is remembered that with the selected list of esculent mushrooms

herein offered is implied also an invitation and a recommendation to

the feast thereof, with the author as the host--that the digestive

functions of his confiding friends or guests are to be made the final

arbiters of the correctness of his botanical identification--the ban

of bane may as well be pronounced at the threshold. Let the too eager

epicurean be "scared to death at the outset," on the general principle

_pro bono publico_, and to the conciliation of the author's conscience.

[Sidenote: =To correspondents=]

The oft-repeated queries of other correspondents suggest the wisdom

of a clearer definition of the limitations of the present work.

Several individuals have written in surprise of their discovery of

a new toadstool which I "did not include in my pictured magazine

list," with accompaniment of more or less inadequate description and

somewhat enigmatical sketches, and desiring the name of the species

and judgment upon its esculent qualities. Such correspondence is a

pleasing tribute to an author, and is herewith gratefully acknowledged

as to the past and, with some mental reservations, welcomed as to the

future. The number of these communications--occasionally several in

a day, and with consequent rapid accumulation--renders it absolutely

impossible for a busy man to give them the prompt personal attention

which courtesy would dictate. My "mushroom" pigeon-hole, therefore, is

still plethoric with the unhonored correspondence of many weeks; and

inasmuch as the continual accession more than balances the number of

my responses, a fulfilment of my obligations in this direction seems

hopeless in contemplation. I would therefore beg the indulgence of

such of my friends as have awaited in vain for my reply to their kind

communications, even though the future should bring no tidings from me.

All of these letters have been received, and are herewith acknowledged:

many of them, too, if I may be pardoned what would seem to be a most

ungracious comment, for which the "dead-letter" office would have been

the more appropriate destination.

[Sidenote: =Consider the recipient=]

I refer to the correspondence "with accompanying specimens," the letter

occasionally enclosed in the same box with the said specimens, which,

upon its arrival, arouses a protest from the local postal authorities,

and calls for a liberal use of disinfectants--a disreputable-looking

parcel, which, indeed, would appear more consistently referable to the

health-board than to the mycologist. So frequent did this embarrassing

episode become that it finally necessitated the establishment of a

morgue for the benefit of my mushroom correspondents, or rather for

their "specimens," usually accompanied with the queries, "What is

the name of this mushroom? Is it edible?" I have been obliged to

write to several of my friends that identification of the remains was

impossible, that the remnant was more interesting entomologically than

botanically, and begging that in the future all such similar tokens

shall be forwarded in alcohol or packed in ice.

[Sidenote: =Rapid decay=]

"First impressions are lasting" and "a word to the wise is sufficient."

I would suggest that correspondents hereafter consider the hazard of

an introduction under such questionable auspices. Most species of

mushrooms are extremely perishable, and their "animal" character,

chemically considered, and their tendency to rapid decomposition,

render them unfit for transportation for any distance, unless

hermetically sealed, or their decay otherwise anticipated.

In the possibility of a continuance of this correspondence, consequent

upon the publication of this present book, the writer, in order to

forefend a presumably generous proportion of such correspondence,

would here emphasize the fact that he is by no means the authority on

mycology, or the science of fungi, which the attitude of his inquiring

friends would imply. Indeed, his knowledge of species is quite limited.

An early fascination, it is true, was humored with considerable zeal

to the accumulation of a portfolio of water-colors and other drawings

of various fungi--microscopic, curious, edible, and poisonous--and

this collection has been subsequently added to at intervals during his

regular professional work.

More than one of the originals of the accompanying colored plates have

been hidden in this portfolio for over twenty years, and a larger

number for ten or fifteen years, awaiting the further accumulation

of that knowledge and experience, especially with reference to the

edibility of species, which should warrant the utterance of the

long-contemplated book.

[Sidenote: =Number of mushroom species=]

The reader will therefore kindly remember that out of the approximate

1000 odd species of fungi entitled by their dimensions to the dignity

of "toadstools" or "mushrooms"--after separating the 2000 moulds,

mildews, rusts, smuts, blights, yeasts, "mother," and other microscopic

species--and out of the 150 recommended edible species, the present

work includes only about thirty. This selection has _direct reference

to popular utility_, only such species having been included as offer

some striking or other individual peculiarity by which they may be

simply identified, even without so-called scientific knowledge.

The addition of color to the present list enables its extension

somewhat beyond the scope of a series printed only in black and white,

as in the distinction of mere form alone an uncolored drawing of a

certain species might serve to the popular eye as a common portrait of

a number of allied species, possibly including a poisonous variety.

[Sidenote: =Mycology and mycophagy=]

[Sidenote: =Need of a practical work=]

While the study of "fungi" has a host of devotees, the mysteries which

involve the origin of life in this great order of the _cryptogamia_

having had fascinating attractions to microscopical students and

specialists, the study of _economic mycology_ has been almost without

a champion in the United States. Thus we have many learned treatises

on the nature, structure, and habits of fungi--vegetative methods,

chemical constituents, specific characters, classification--learned

dissertations on the microscopical moulds, mildews, rusts and smuts,

blights and ferments, to say nothing of the medico-scientific and

awe-inspiring potentialities of the sensational microbe, bacterium,

bacillus, etc., which are daily bringing humanity within their spell

and revolutionizing the science of medicine. But among all the various

mycological publications we look in vain for the great desideratum of

the practical hand-book on the _economic_ fungus--the _mushroom as

food_! The mycologist who has been courageous enough to submit his

chemical analysis and his botanical knowledge of fungi to the test

of esculence in his own being is a _rara avis_ among them; indeed, a

well-known authority states that "one may number on the fingers of

his two hands the entire list of mycophagists in the United States."

The absence of such works upon the mushroom and "toadstool," greatly

desired for reference at an early period of my career, and little

better supplied to-day, led to a resolve of which this volume is but an

imperfect fulfilment.

[Sidenote: =Limitations of this volume=]

The special character of my volume, then--the collateral consideration

of the fungus as food--will be sufficient excuse for the omission of

a merely technical discourse upon the structure, classification, and

vegetation of fungi as a class--a field so fully covered by other

authors more competent to discuss these lines of special science,

and to a selection of whose works the reader is referred in the list

herewith appended, to a number of which I am indebted for occasional

quotations. A general idea of the methods of dissemination and habitats

of fungi will be found in the final chapter on "spore-prints," while

under the discussion of the "Amanita," _Agaricus campestris_, and

the "Fairy Ring" the reader is referred to a condensed account of

the methods of vegetation and growth of fungi sufficient for present

purposes. Other references of similar character will be noted under

"Fungi," in Index.

[Sidenote: =The pioneer American mycophagist=]

The most conspicuous disciple of mycophagy--almost the pioneer, indeed,

in America--was the late Rev. M. A. Curtis, of North Carolina, whose

name heads the bibliography on page 325. For the benefit of those of my

readers who may wish to follow the subject further than my pages will

lead them, I append the list of edible species of fungi contained in

Curtis's Catalogue, each group alphabetically arranged, the esculent

qualities of many of which he himself discovered and attested by

personal experiment. The favorite habitat of each fungus is also given,

and to avoid any possibility of confusion in scientific nomenclature or

synonymes, the authority for the scientific name is also given in each

instance:

LIST OF EDIBLE AMERICAN MUSHROOMS

FROM THE CATALOGUE OF DR. M. A. CURTIS

_Agaricus albellus._ De Candolle. Damp woods.

_A. (amanita) Cæsarea._ Scopoli. In oak forests.

_A. (amanita) rubescens._ Persoon. Damp woods.

_A. (amanita) strobiliformis._ Vittadini. Common in woods.

_A. amygdalinus._ M. A. Curtis. Rich grounds, woods, and lanes.

_A. arvensis._ Schaeffer. Fields and pastures.

_A. bombicinus._ Schaeffer. Earth and carious wood.

_A. campestris._ Linnæus. Fields and pastures.

_A. castus._ M. A. Curtis. Grassy old fields.

_A. cespitosus._ M. A. Curtis. Base of stumps.

_A. columbella._ Fries. Woods.

_A. consociatus._ Pine woods.

_Agaricus cretaceus._ Fries. Earth and wood.

_A. esculentus._ Jacquin. Dense woods.

_A. excoriatus._ Fries. Grassy lands.

_A. frumentaceous._ Bulliard. Pine woods.

_A. giganteus._ Sowerby. Borders of pine woods.

_A. glandulosus._ Bulliard. Dead trunks.

_A. hypopithyus._ M. A. Curtis. Pine logs.

_A. mastoideus._ Fries. Woods.

_A. melleus._ Valmy. About stumps and logs.

_A. mutabilis._ Schaeffer. Trunks.

_A. nebularis._ Batsch. Damp woods.

_A. odorus._ Bulliard. Woods.

_A. ostreatus._ Jacquin. Dead trunks.

_A. personatus._ M. A. Curtis. Near rotten logs.

_A. pometi._ Fries. Carious wood.

_A. procerus._ Scopoli. Woods and fields.

_A. prunulus._ Scopoli. Damp woods.

_A. rachodes._ Vittadini. Base of stumps and trees.

_A. radicatus._ Bulliard. Woods.

_A. (russula)._ Schaeffer. Among leaves in woods.

_A. salignus._ Persoon. On trunks and stumps.

_A. speciosus._ Fries. Grassy land.

_A. squamosus._ Muller. Oak stumps.

_A. sylvaticus._ Schaeffer. Woods.

_A. tessellatus._ Bulliard. Pine trunks.

_A. ulmarius._ Sowerby. Dead trunks.

_Boletus bovinus._ Linnæus. Pine woods.

_B. castaneus._ Bulliard. Woods.

_B. collinitus._ Fries. Pine woods.

_B. edulis._ Bulliard. Woods.

_B. elegans._ Fries. Earth in woods.

_B. flavidus._ Fries. Damp woods.

_B. granulatus._ Linnæus. Woods and fields.

_B. luteus._ Linnæus. Pine woods.

_B. scaber._ Bulliard. Sandy woods.

_B. subtomentosus._ Linnæus. Earth in woods.

_B. versipellis._ Fries. Woods.

_Bovista nigrescens._ Persoon. Grassy fields.

_B. plumbea._ Persoon. Grassy fields.

_Cantharellus cibarius._ Fries. Woods.

_Clavaria aurea._ Schaeffer. Earth in woods.

_C. botritis._ Persoon. Earth in woods.

_C. cristata._ Holmskiold. Damp woods.

_C. fastigiata._ Linnæus. Grassy places.

_C. flava._ Fries. Earth in woods.

_C. formosa._ Persoon. Earth in woods.

_Clavaria fuliginea._ Persoon. Shady woods.

_C. macropus._ Persoon. Earth.

_C. muscoides._ Linnæus. Grassy places.

_C. pyxidata._ Persoon. Rotten woods.

_C. rugosa._ Bulliard. Damp woods.

_C. subtilis._ Persoon. Shaded banks.

_C. tetragona._ Schwartz. Damp woods.

_Coprinus atramentarius._ Bulliard. Manured ground.

_C. comatus._ Fries. In stable-yards.

_Cortinarius castaneus._ Fries. Earth in woods.

_C. cinnamomeus._ Fries. Earth and wood.

_C. violaceus._ Fries. Woods.

_Fistulina hepatica._ Fries. Base of trunks and stumps.

_Helvella crispa._ Fries. Pine in woods.

_H. infula._ Schaeffer. Earth and pine logs.

_H. lacunosa._ Afzelius. Near rotten logs.

_H. sulcata._ Afzelius. Shady woods.

_Hydnum caput-medusæ._ Bulliard. Trunks and logs.

_H. coralloides._ Scopoli. Side of trunks.

_H. imbricatum._ Linnæus. Earth in woods.

_H. laevigatum._ Schwartz. Pine woods.

_H. repandum._ Linnæus. Woods.

_H. rufescens._ Schaeffer. Woods.

_H. subsquamosum._ Batsch. Damp woods.

_Hygrophorus eburneus._ Fries. Woods.

_H. pratensis._ Fries. Hill-sides.

_Lactarius augustissimus._ Lasch. Thin woods.

_L. deliciosus._ Fries. Pine woods.

_L. insulsus._ Fries. Woods.

_L. piperatus._ Fries. Dry woods.

_L. subdulcis._ Fries. Damp grounds.

_L. volemus._ Fries. Woods.

_Lycoperdon bovista._ Linnæus. Grassy lands.

_Pachyma cocos._ Fries. Underground.

_Paxillus involutus._ Fries. Sandy woods.

_Polyporus Berkeleii._ Fries. Woods.

_P. confluens._ Fries. Pine woods.

_P. cristatus._ Fries. Pine woods.

_P. frondorus._ Fries. Earth and base of stumps.

_P. giganteus._ Fries. Base of stumps.

_P. leucomelas._ Fries. Woods.

_P. ovinus._ Schaeffer. Earth in woods.

_P. poripes._ Fries. Wooded ravines.

_P. sulphureus._ Fries. Trunks and logs.

_Marasmius oreades._ Fries. Hill-sides.

_M. scorodoneus._ Fries. Decaying vegetation.

_Morchella Caroliniana._ Bosc. Earth in woods.

_M. esculenta._ Persoon. Earth in woods.

_Russula alutacea._ Fries. Woods.

_R. lepida._ Fries. Pine woods.

_R. virescens._ Fries. Woods.

_Sparassis crispa._ Fries. Earth.

_S. laminosa._ Fries. Oak logs.

_Tremella mesenterica._ Retz. On bark.

In the contemplation of such a generous natural larder as the above

list implies, Dr. Badham's feeling allusion to the "hundred-weights of

wholesome diet rotting under the trees," quoted in one of my earlier

illustrated pages, will be readily appreciated.

[Sidenote: =Restricted scope of this volume=]

In the purposely restricted scope of these pages I have omitted a large

majority of species in Dr. Curtis's list, known to be equally esculent

with those which I have selected, but whose _popular differentiation_

might involve too close discrimination and possibly serious error; and

while my list is probably not as complete as it might be with perfect

safety, the number embraces species, nearly all of them what may be

called cosmopolitan types, to be found more or less commonly throughout

the whole United States and generally identical with European species.

It will be observed that the list of Dr. Curtis is headed by three

members of Amanitæ. The particular species cited are well known to

be esculent, but they are purposely omitted from my list, which for

considerations of safety absolutely excludes the entire genus _Amanita_

of the "_poison-cup_" which is discussed at some length in the

succeeding chapter.

For popular utility from the food standpoint my selection presents,

to all intents and purposes, a more than sufficient list, the species

being easily distinguished, and, with proper consideration to their

freshness, entirely safe and of sufficient frequency in their haunts to

insure a continually available mushroom harvest throughout the entire

fungus season.

[Sidenote: =Fungus food always available=]

The knowledge of their identities once acquired, it is perfectly

reasonable to assert that in average weather conditions the

fungus-hunter may confine himself to these varieties and still be

confronted with an embarrassment of riches, availing himself of

three meals a day, with the mere trouble of a ramble through the

woods or pastures. Indeed, he may restrict himself to six of these

species--the green Russula, Puff-ball, Pasture-mushroom, Campestris

(meadow-mushroom), Shaggy-mane, and _Boletus edulis_--and yet become a

veritable mycological gourmand if he chooses, never at a loss for an

appetizing entrée at his table.

In the group of Russulæ and Boleti alone, more than one conservative

amateur of the writer's acquaintance finds a sufficient supply to meet

all dietary wants.

[Sidenote: =A neglected harvest=]

What a plenteous, spontaneous harvest of delicious feasting annually

goes begging in our woods and fields!

The sentiment of Dr. Badham, the eminent British authority on

mushrooms, years ago, in reference to the spontaneous perennial harvest

of wild edible fungi which abounded in his country, going to waste by

the ton, would appear to be as true to-day for Britain as when he

uttered it, and applies with even greater force to the similar, I may

say identical, neglected tribute of Nature in our own American woods

and fields, where the growth of fungi is especially rich.

[Sidenote: =Fungus epicures=]

The fungus-eaters of Britain, it is said, are even to-day merely

a conspicuous coterie, while in America this particular sort of

specialist is more generally an isolated "crank" who is compelled to

"flock alone," contemplated with a certain awe by his less venturesome

fellows, and otherwise variously considered, either with envy of

his experience and scientific knowledge, or more probably as an

irresponsible, who continually tempts Providence in his foolhardy

experiments with poison.

[Sidenote: =Chemical constituents=]

But what a contrast do we find on the Continent in the appreciation

of the fungus as an article of diet! In France, Germany, Russia, and

Italy, for example, where the woods are scoured for the perennial crop,

and where, through centuries of popular familiarity and tradition,

the knowledge of its economic value has become the possession of the

people, a most important possession to the poor peasant who, perhaps

for weeks together, will taste no other animal food. I say "animal

food" advisedly; for, gastronomically and chemically considered, the

flesh of the mushroom has been proven to be almost identical with meat,

and possesses the same nourishing properties. This animal affinity

is further suggested in its physiological life, the fungus reversing

the order of all other vegetation in imbibing oxygen and exhaling

carbonic acid, after the manner of animals. It is not surprising,

therefore, that the analogy should be still further emphasized by

the discrimination of the palate, many kinds of fungi when cooked

simulating the taste and consistency of animal food almost to the point

of deception.

[Sidenote: =Popular distrust of fungi=]

But in America the fungus is under the ban, its great majority of

harmless or even wholesome edible species having been brought into

popular disrepute through the contamination, mostly, of a single small

genus.

In the absence of special scientific knowledge, or, from our present

point of view, its equivalent, popular familiarity, this general

distrust of the whole fungus tribe may be, however, considered a

beneficent prejudice. So deadly is the insidious, mysterious foe that

lurks among the friendly species that it is well for humanity in

general that the entire list of fungi should share its odium, else

those "toadstool" fatalities, already alarmingly frequent, might become

a serious feature in our tables of mortality.

[Sidenote: =Fungus food for all=]

But the prejudice is needlessly sweeping. A little so-called knowledge

of fungi has often proven to be a "dangerous thing," it is true, but

it is quite possible for any one of ordinary intelligence, rightly

instructed, to master the discrimination of at least a _few_ of the

more _common edible_ species, while being _thoroughly equipped_

against the dangers of _deadly_ varieties, whose identification is

comparatively simple.

[Sidenote: ="Toadstool" and "mushroom"=]

It is idle to attempt an adjudication of the vexed "toadstool"

and "mushroom" question here. The toad is plainly the only final,

appealable authority on this subject. It may be questioned whether he

is at pains to determine the delectable or noisome qualities--from the

human standpoint--of a particular fungus before deciding to settle his

comfortable proportions upon its summit--if, indeed, he even so honors

even the humblest of them.

The oft-repeated question, therefore, "Is this fungus a toadstool or a

mushroom?" may fittingly be met by the counter query, "Is this rose a

flower or a blossom?"

The so-called distinction is a purely arbitrary, popular prejudice

which differentiates the "toadstool" as poisonous, the "mushroom" being

considered harmless. But even the rustic authorities are rather mixed

on the subject, as may be well illustrated by a recent incident in my

own experience.

[Sidenote: =Popular discrimination=]

Walking in the woods with a country friend in quest of fungi, we

were discussing this "toadstool" topic when we came upon a cluster

of mushrooms at the base of a tree-trunk, their broad, expanded caps

apparently upholstered in fawn-colored, undressed kid, their under

surfaces being stuffed and tufted in pale greenish hue.

"What would you call those?" I inquired.

"Those are toadstools, unmistakably," he replied.

"Well, toadstools or not, you see there about two pounds of

delicious vegetable meat, for it is the common species of edible

boletus--_Boletus edulis_."

A few moments later we paused before a beautiful specimen, lifting its

parasol of pure white above the black leaf mould.

"And what is this?" I inquired.

"I would certainly call _that_ a mushroom," was his instant reply.

This mushroom proved to be a fine, tempting specimen of the _Agaricus_

(_amanita_) _vernus_, the deadliest of the mushrooms, and one of the

most violent and fatal of all known vegetable poisons, whose attractive

graces and insidious wiles are doubtless continually responsible for

those numerous fatalities usually dismissed with the epitaph, "Died

from eating toadstools in mistake for mushrooms."

So much, therefore, for the popular distinction which makes "toadstool"

a synonyme for "poisonous," and "mushroom" synonymous with "edible,"

and which often proves to be the "little knowledge" which is very

dangerous.

[Sidenote: =The rustic authorities on "mushrooms"=]

The too prevalent mortality traceable to the mushroom is confined to

two classes of unfortunates: 1. Those who have not learned that there

is such a thing as a fatal mushroom; 2. The provincial authority who

Can "tell a mushroom" by a number of his so-called infallible "_tests_"

or "proofs." There is a large third class to whose conservative

caution is to be referred the prevalent arbitrary distinction between

"toadstool" and "mushroom," ardent disciples of old Tertullian, who

believed in regard to toadstools that "For every different hue they

display there is a pain to correspond to it, and just so many modes of

death as there are distinct species," and whose obstinate dogma, "There

is only one mushroom, all the rest are toadstools," has doubtless

spared them an occasional untimely grave, for few of this class, from

their very conservatism, ever fall victims to the "toadstool."

And what a self-complacent, patronizing, solicitous character this

rustic mushroom oracle is! Go where you will in the rural districts

and you are sure of him, or perhaps her--usually a conspicuous figure

in the neighborhood, the village blacksmith, perhaps, or the simpler

"Old Aunt Huldy." Their father and "granther" before them "knew how to

tell a mushroom," and this enviable knowledge has been their particular

inheritance.

How well we more special students of the fungus know him! and how he

wins our tender regard with his keen solicitude for our well-being!

We meet him everywhere in our travels, and always with the same old

story! We emerge from the wood, perhaps, with our basket brimful of our

particular fungus tidbits, topped off with specimens of red Russula

and Boletus, and chance to pass him on the road or in the meadow. He

scans the basket curiously as he passes us. He has perhaps heard rumors

afloat that "there's a city chap in town who is tempting Providence

with his foolin' with tudstools;" and with genuine solicitude and

superior condescension and awe, all betrayed in his countenance, he

must needs pause in his walk to relieve his mind in our behalf. I

recall one characteristic episode, of which the above is the prelude.

"Ye ain't a-goin' to eat _them_, air ye?" he asks, anxiously, by way of

introduction.

[Sidenote: =Rustic discrimination=]

"I am, most certainly," I respond; "that is, if I can get my good

farmer's wife to cook them without coming them and inundating them in

lemon-juice."

"Waal, then, I'll say good-bye to ye," he responds, with emphasis.

"Why, don't ye know them's tudstools, 'n' they'll _kill_ ye as _sartin_

as _pizen_? I wonder they ain't fetched ye afore this. You never larned

tew tell mushrooms. My father et 'em all his life, and so hev I, 'n' I

_know_ 'em. Come up into my garden yender 'n' I'll show ye haow to tell

the _reel mushroom_. There's a lot of 'em thar in the hot-bed naow.

Come along. I'll _give_ ye a mess on 'em if ye'll only throw them pizen

things away."

"And how do you know that those in your garden _are_ real mushrooms?" I

inquire.

"Why, they ain't _anything_ like _them_ o' yourn. They're pink and

black underneath, and peel up from the edge."

"How many kinds of mushrooms are there, do you suppose?" I ask.

"They's only the _one_ kind; all the others is _tudstools_ and _pizen_.

It's easy to tell the _reel_ mushroom. Come up and I'll show ye. Don't

eat _them_ things, I beg on ye! I vaow they'll _kill_ ye!"

At this point he catches a glimpse of a Shaggy-mane mushroom, which

comes to light as I tenderly fondle the specimens, and which is

evidently recognized as an acquaintance.

"What!" he exclaims, in pale alarm. "Ye _ain't_ goin' t' eat them

_too_?"

"Oh yes I am, this very evening," I respond. "I think I'll try them

_first_."

[Sidenote: =A rustic authority= ]

"Why, man, yure crazy! You don't know nothin' about 'em. I'd as soon

think o' eatin' pizen outright. Them's what we call black-slime

tudstools. They come up out o' manure. I've seen my muck-heap in my

barnyard covered with the nasty things time 'n' ag'in. They look nice

'n' white naow, but they rot into the onsiteliest black mess ye ever

see. I know wut I'm sayin'. Ye can't tell me nothin' 'baout _them_

tudstools! They keep comin' up along my barn-fence all thro' the

fall--_bushels_ of 'em."

"Well, my good friend, it's a great pity, then, that you have not

learned something about toadstools as well as mushrooms, for you might

have saved many a butcher's bill, and may in the future if you will

only take my word that this much-abused specimen is as truly a mushroom

as your pink-gilled peeler, and to my mind far more delicious."

"What! Do you mean to tell me thet you have _reely eaten 'em_?"

"Yes, indeed; often. Why, just look at its clean, shaggy cap, its

creamy white or pink gills underneath; take a sniff of its pleasant

aroma; and here! just taste a little piece--it's as sweet as a nut!" I

conclude, offering him the white morsel.

"Not much! I'll make my will first, thank'ee! You let me _see_ ye eat a

mess of 'em, and if the coroner don't get ye, p'r'aps I'll try on't."

[Sidenote: ="Toadstool" prejudice=]

Experiences similar to this one are frequent in the career of every

mycophagist, and serve to illustrate the pity and solicitude which

he awakens among his fellow-mortals, as well as to emphasize the

prevalent superstitions regarding the comparative virtues of the

mushroom and toadstool--a prejudice which, by-the-way, in the absence

of available popular literature on the subject, and the actual dangers

which encompass their popular distinction, is a most beneficent public

safeguard.

[Sidenote: =Popular tests and superstitions=]

The mushroom which "he can tell" is generally the _Agaricus

campestris_, or one of its several varieties; and knowing this alone,

and tempted by no other, this sort of village oracle escapes the fate

which often awaits another class, who are not thus conservative,

and who extend their definition of mushroom (a word supposed to be

synonymous with "edible"), and this mainly through the indorsement

of certain so-called infallible tests handed down to them from their

forefathers, and by which the esculent varieties may be distinguished

from the poisonous. By these so-called "tests" or "proofs" the

identification of certain species is gradually acquired. The rural

fungus epicure now "knows them by sight," or perhaps has received his

information second-hand, and makes his selection without hesitation,

with what success may be judged from the incident in my own experience

already noted--one which, knowing as I did the frequency and confidence

with which my country friend sampled the fungi at his table, filled me

with consternation and anxiety for his future.

"How, then, shall we distinguish a mushroom from a toadstool?"

There is no way of distinguishing them, for they are the same.

"How, then, shall we know a poisonous toadstool from a harmless one?"

the reader hopelessly exclaims.

This discrimination is by no means as difficult as is popularly

supposed, but in the first place, the student must entirely rid himself

of all preconceived notions and traditions, such as the following

almost world-wide "tests," many of which are easily demonstrated to be

worse than worthless, and have doubtless frequently led to an untimely

funeral. Some of these are merely local, and in widely separated

districts are supplanted by others equally arbitrary and absurd, while

many of them are as old as history.

WORTHLESS TRADITIONAL TESTS FOR THE DISCRIMINATION

OF POISONOUS AND EDIBLE MUSHROOMS