Since our proposals first appeared (Mycologia 38: 240-299. 1946), we have continued to check and recheck on the correctness of our data and the practical desirability of our proposals. This work has been helped by discussions with Dr. M. A. Donk who spent several months at the Farlow Herbarium, working on Basidiomycetes and comparing notes with the senior author on various aspects of nomenclature and systematics. In spite of the fact that only five items have turned out to be, in one way or another, in need of emendation or correction, we believe that a speedy publication of the changes in the proposals is desirable even though they might be of no immediate nomenclatural importance or seem to be minor technicalities. They will, however, emend the set of facts on which we base our proposals, and will be of interest to those who, two years from now, must decide whether or not they will approve the proposals concerning the nomenclature of the gill fungi as outlined in our paper. On p. 258, between XII and XIII, W. G. Smith's work, Clavis Agaricinorum, 1870, was omitted. In this, the genus Lepista (Fr.) W. G. Smith, l.c. p. 26, was first considered as a genus after it had been treated as a section of Paxillus by Fries in Epicrisis p. 315, 1838. The only possible, logical and practical type species, occurring both in Fries' and in Smith's definition of this taxonomic unit, is Paxillus lepista Fr. If this species, as we now propose, is considered as the species typica of Lepista, it turns out that Rhodopaxillus R. Maire becomes a synonym of Lepista, which has a solid priority. This is, of course, important only for those authors who separate this group from Tricholonia and Clitocybe. Aside from that, it makes our previous discussions on Lepista (see no. 73, p. 266, l.c. and no. 81, p. 269, l.c.) unnecessary. These should be considered as deleted. On the same page (258), between XII and the above insertion, 627