(Undent) HE WON'T *insert senseless raving and ranting here* This promises to be a long bibliographic hunt, and this is my initial contribution. Benedict (1972) is a literature review, the relevant paragraph (on p. 309, BTW) is as follow: 
 [Taxonmic fluff about Rhodophyllus] Tyler (1963) lists six species extracts of which are toxic to Guinea pigs. One species is particularly dangerous, R. sinuatus (Bull. ex Fr.) Sing., and is said to produce severe abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea, and to incapacitate an individual for several days after symptoms begin. The agent in this fungus causes liver damage and has not been isolated. Deaths from this fungus are infrequent in adults, but children have been known to succumb. 
 Not very useful is it? Tyler (1963, PMID 14094714), it turns out, is cited almost verbatim (the relevant content is in table XIV, pp. 378-379, an extract: "Some liver damage may result. Death is infrequent, but has been observed in children."), and as this is also a literature review, I will stop at listing the citations for the content in Tyler: 
 *Ford, W.W. J. Pharmacol. Exptl. Therap. 2, 285 (1911) 
 *Jahn, H. Pilze Rundum  (1949) 
 **Repub. 1979 ISBN 3-87429-159-6 
 *Kauffman CH. (1918). The Agaricaceae of Michigan, vol. I & II. Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., State Printers, Lansing, MI. 924 pp. 
 *Michael & Hennig, Hanbuch für Pilzfreunde, vols I & II, (1958-1960) 
 *Pilát & Ušát, Mushrooms (1954) 
 *Romagnesi Nouvel Atlas des Champignons' (1958-1960) 
 *Smith, A.H. Mushrooms in their Natural Habitats'' 
 So, little, if any first-hand reporting, and it's not entirely clear to me whether the taxonomic knowledge of the time would have been accurate. Personally I say we treat the source as too outdated and unconfirmed by modern reference material.