H4 The Botanical Gazette. [April, 



Pileus dimidiate, unguliform. 5 to 6 cm. thick, radiate-rugose and 

 zonate; surface whitish and subpulverulent at first, becoming yellowish 

 and glabrate, rimose, and finally of a dark, weather-beaten wood 

 color; margin subobtuse or rounded, in the plane and concave speci- 

 mens frequently with a distinct edge along its centre: pores stratose, 

 sub-cylindrical, about three to a millimeter (including dissepiments)* 

 margins sub-acute, color at first white, finally creamy or faintly yellow- 

 ish, fragile, easily bruised and rubbed off, leaving the surface ochra- 

 ceous; surface concave, becoming plane or convex in age. Pores ex- 

 tending nearly through to the upper surface of the pileus, being covered 

 above only by a thin (2-4 mm.) corky, pale-ochraceous layer. Spores 

 hyaline, elliptical-globose or oblong, 5-6X4-5 ja. 



In old specimens the annual layer of pores does not extend fully 

 out, so that the margin of the pileus becomes broadly rounded, as de- 

 scribed. 



Related to Fomes fraxinophilus Peck, which species is thinner and 

 broader, not rimose and with the pore walls thicker. 



This fine species, Fomes Ellisianus, is very abundant in the Teton 

 valley and doubtless throughout northern Montana and the north- 

 west territory. Shepherdia argentea in these regions frequently grows 

 in dense groves along streams and the fungus with its pileus the color 

 of the host bark and pure white or creamy pore surface forms a strik- 

 ing and beautiful object. It is a pleasure to dedicate this species to Mr. J. 

 B. Ellis, who has so generously helped me in my mycological work in 

 Montana and elsewhere.— F. W. Anderson, New York City, Jan. 9th, 

 1891. 



Silnliium hiduiatum L.— In the Botanic Garden of Harvard Uni- 

 versity two specimens of Silp/iiitm laciniatum L. have been cultivated 

 for a number of years. Although these plants differ very noticeably 

 in several particulars, Dr. Cxray did not regard them as sufficiently 

 distinct for separate systematic treatment. Sometime ago Dr. Watson 

 kindly called my attention to the plants in question, and expressed the 



opinion that it would be well after all that they should be described, 

 m the hope that botanists living where this well-known species occurs 

 may observe whether or not these forms are constant enough to re- 

 ceive recognition as varieties. Acting upon this suggestion I have 

 examined the plants and find they have the following distinctive 

 characters: 



No. 1. Stem very rough, especially near the summit, where, together 

 with peduncles and involucres, it is covered with bristly white jointed 

 hairs, which are not at all glandular; leaves flat or nearly so, the upper 

 cauline small, with narrow segments and inserted by a narrow clasping 



