to a Knowledge of the Hydnaceae 219 



soon's figure and appears to be an immature plant of some sort. 

 The decidedly decurrent teeth would seem to distinguish the spe- 

 cies well and it is doubtful if if has ever been found in this country. 



30. Hydnum versipelle Fries, Ofvers. af Kongl. Vet. Ak. For- 



hand. 1861 : 73. 1862 



Icon. : Fries, Icon. Sel< 

 Type Loc. : European. 



P i. 



This species has been reported but once. New York (Fair- 

 man). I have seen only a single specimen of this collection but 

 doubt if it is H. versipelle. The plant seen does not show in the 

 least the confluent cespitose character emphasized by Fries both 

 in his description and in his figure. 



31. Hydnum tomentosum L. Sp. PL 2 : 1178. 1753 



Icon. : Smith, Seeman's Jour. Bot. 6 \pl. 76. 



Type Loc. : European. 



This has been reported only by Schweinitz. His specimen 

 in the Philadelphia Academy is now only a scrap but is clearly 

 not cyathiforme Schaef. nor does it resemble H. tomentosum L. as 

 figured by Smith, loc. cit. It seems safe to assume that H. tomen- 

 tosum L., if we are to regard it as distinct from H. cyathiforme 

 Schaeff., has not been found in this country. 



32. Hydnum compactum Persoon, Comm. Schaeff. 57. pi. 



146. / J, 2, j, 5, 6. 1800 



Type Loc. : European. 



Reported from South Carolina (Curtis) and North Carolina 

 (Schweinitz). No species of the genus seems to be more uncer- 

 tain than this. An examination of specimens from collectors in 

 this country, as well as a study of European exciccati, reveals a very 

 great difference of conception as to the characters of the species ; 

 even published descriptions are difficult to harmonize. An appeal 

 to Persoon's original description does not give much help in the 

 matter. He established the species on part of Schaeffers figures 

 of H. floriforme, the turbinate forms of pi. 146. f. /, -?, j f 5, 6, and 

 gave a very meager description, but one that differs essentially 

 from Schaeffers account of fioriforme. As there is no good rea- 

 son to suppose Schaeffer's figures did not correctly represent the 



