VOL. III.] Polyporoid Fungi. 95 



with pores just as large and just as angular, are to remain in Poly- 

 porus. We suspect that the same is true of Hexagonia, but we 

 have seen too few species of that genus to form a definite conclu- 

 sion. 



(d) Mucronoporus, with spines within the pores, stands on 

 about as valid ground as would a genus established on Polyporus 

 hydnoides and characterized by the bristly hairs which thickly cover 

 its pileus. Were the systematists among the flowering plants to 

 divide every genus that possessed both glabrous and pubescent 

 species, there would be even more hair-pulling in their ranks than 

 has yet appeared. 



(e) The subdivision of Polyporus on the basis of the color of 

 the cortex and spores, as proposed by some continental botanists', 

 is no more rational than to divide Viola into three genera to contain 

 the blue, yellow and white flowered species respectively. 



(f) No more rational is the sub-division of the same genus into 

 Fomes, Polystictus and Poria. This seems to have been attempted 

 by Fries- as a sort of experiment, but was not continued by him in 

 his Opus Maximus,'' nor other later writings. M. C. Cooke resur- 

 rected this classification in his Prsecursores,* and he was almost im- 

 mediately followed by Saccardo^ A few American mycologists, 

 who do not seem to appreciate that Saccardo's Sylloge is a con- 

 venient compilation rather than a critical conspectus, have also 

 adopted it bodily. 



4. D^edalea will probably have to be united with Lenzites, but 

 whether this united group will be agaric with polyporoid affinities, 

 or polypore with agaricoid affinities, it would be hard to decide with 

 the light thrown upon the genus by American species. 



5. The genera about which there is no present suspicion are, 

 so far as our flora is concerned, Polyporus, Boletus, Fistulina, Sole- 

 nia, Merulius and perhaps Strobilomyces. Porothelium and Cyclo- 

 myces are not sufficiently known to us to permit a judgment. 



' Cf. Schrceter loc. cit. 

 ■^Novre Symbolse Mycologicx', 1851. 

 ' Hymenomycetes Europce, 1874. 



■* Prsecursores ad Monogragraphia Polyporovum, Grevillea, xiii, S0-S7, 114-119; 

 xiv, 17-21, 77-87, 109-I15; XV, 19-27, 50-60 (1885-6). 

 ^Sylloge Fungonmi, vi. 



