114 MURRILL : POLYPORACEAE OF NoRTH AMERICA 



specimen in the herbarium of the Division of Vegetable Pathology 

 and Physiology of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 



5. Pyropolyporus Everhartii (Ell. & Gall.) 



Mucronoporus EvcrJuvtii Ell. & Gall. Journ. Myc. 5 : 141-142. 

 pi. 12. 1889. 



XaiithocJirous Everhartii Y2X. Cat. Tun. 51. 1897. 



The type of this fungus is in the herbarium of the New York 

 Botanical Garden. Since its discovery on the living trunk of a 

 scarlet oak in New Jersey, it has been collected in several localities 

 on various species of oak and occasionally on beech. Before its 

 separation as a distinct species it had been confused with P. ignia- 

 rius, which it outwardly resembles in some particulars. 



Collections : New York (Ellis, Mrs. Ellis, Murrill), New Jer- 

 sey (Ellis, Ely), Canada (Dearness), Indiana (Gentry), Pennsylvania 

 (Herbst) and Delaware (Commons, Ellis N. A. Fungi no. 3303). 



6. Pyropolyporus Robiniae sp. nov. 



A large fungus with dark rimose surface and tawny hymenium 

 very common on Robinia psaidacacia. Pileus hard woody, dimid- 

 iate, ungulate to applanate, 5-25 X 5-50 X 2-12 cm.; surface 

 velvety, smooth, soon becoming very rimose and roughened, 

 fulvous to purplish-black, at length dull black, deeply and broadly 

 concentrically sulcate ; margin rounded, velvety, fulvous : context 

 hard woody, concentrically banded, 1-3 cm. thick, fulvous ; tubes 

 stratose, 0.15-0.5 cm. long, 5 to a mm., fulvous, mouths sub- 

 circular, dissepiments entire, equalling tubes in thickness : spores 

 subglobose, smooth, thin-walled, ferruginous, copious, 4—5 fi, cys- 

 tidia none. 



This fungus was one of the first to be noticed by collectors in 

 this country, but has been unnamed until the present time. 

 Schweinitz called it Polyporiis igiiiarius and remarked that it was 

 "frequent especially on Robinia'''; Berkeley confused it with his 

 P. rinwsus described from Demerara and the Cape of Good Hope, 

 and Cooke allayed Morgan's anxiety by assigning it most positively 

 to the same category. To be sure, it resembles P. rifnosus Berk, 

 from Demerara, but the two plants are entirely distinct in appear- 

 ance and shape and/*, runosus lacks the decided imbricated-rimose 

 effect so characteristic of our plant. It was from the African 

 plant, a different thing from P. riniosiis, that the name riviosjis must 



