Murrill: Polyporaceae of North America G37 



Polvporus albostvgius B. & C. Jour. Linn. Soc. Bot. 10 : 

 309. 1868. Described from plants collected by Wright on dead 

 wood in Cuba as follows : 



" Pileoe resupinatobreviter reflexo tomentoso pallido, margine pulvinato ; hymenio 

 nigro ; poris minimis punctiformibus intus contextuque albis." 



"Fileus with pores 2 lines thick; pores 1/180 inch in diameter, angular under a 

 high magnifier. A very curious species." 



The type specimens at Kew are white above and within, while 

 the mouths of the tubes are very black. The name is well chosen. 



TRAMETES Fr. Gen. Hym. n. 1836 

 This genus was established upon Polyporns stiaveolcns and its 

 allies, constituting one group, and Dacdalea gibbosa, D. clcgans, 

 D. rubescens, etc., constituting a second subdivision. Polyporus 

 suavcolens is the type. The genus is characterized by Fries as 

 follows : 



" Hymenophorum omnino immutatum et cum pilei substantia concolor inter poros 

 descendit. Pori rotundati aut lineares, acie crassa et obtusa distincti, simplices, inte- 

 gerrimi, numquam laceri. Pileus suberosus." 



Synopsis of the North American species 



Pores small, round, thick-walled ; plant white, very fragrant, only slightly yellowish 

 on drying. I. T. odora. 



Pores much larger, 5 to 10 to a cm., angular, thin-walled; plant not fragrant, deep 

 fawn-colored when dry. 2. T. unicolor. 



i. Trametes odora (Sommerf.) Fr. 

 Polyporus odorus Sommerf. Suppl. Fl. Lap. 275. 1826. — Fr. 



Elench. Fung. 90. 1828. 

 Trametes odora Fr. Epicr. 491. 1838. 

 Daedalea pubcrida B. & C. Grevillea I : 6j. 1872. 



This species was first described from Lapland as follows : 



" Dimidiatus irregularisque, pileo glabra pallescente, poris rotundis albidoochra- 

 ceis. Bo/etfs L. Fl. Lap. no. 522. In Salicibus Nordlandiae saltensis." 



"Odore pergrato et forti aniseo memorabilis. Interstitia pororum lacerata appare- 

 bant, pori tamen integri rotundi." 



The circumstances under which this species was established 

 are not satisfactory. The author had young, poorly developed 

 specimens, and he acknowledges that Linnaeus' plant, B. suaveo- 

 lens, was unknown to him, hence he, as well as Linnaeus, may 

 have confounded the two species. However, specimens sent by 

 him to Fries were considered distinct and his name was taken up 



