IX. — Notes on some Type-Specimens of Myxomycetes in the 

 New Yoek State Museum. — By W. C. Sturgis, Ph.D. 



Among the earlier students of the Myxomycetes in this country, 

 Professor C. FT. Peck of the New York State University stands pre- 

 eminent for the number of species recorded and described. A care- 

 ful examination of Professor Peck's Annual Reports from 1869 to 

 1893 reveals the fact that during that period no less than 107 species 

 were recorded by him, largely from the State of New York. Of 

 these, 33 ai'e described as new. 



Until 1875, the date of Rostafinski's Monograph, the facilities for 

 the systematic study of the Myxomycetes were very meagre. It is 

 not surprising, therefore, to find that much of the work done by Pro- 

 fessor Peck, previous to that date, had to undergo considerable 

 revision later. In his Thirtj^-first Report, for the year 1877, he gives 

 a list of the species recorded by him up to that time, and the same 

 revised in accordance with Rostafinski's Monograph. It is a notable 

 fact that of the 77 species included in this list, 44 remain unchanged 

 in the revision. But, in common with all American students of the 

 Myxomycetes, Professor Peck labored under the disadvantage of 

 having access to very few, if any, of the European type-specimens 

 which formed the basis of Rostafinski's Monograph. His revision, 

 therefore, was based on descriptions and figures merely, and, as was 

 to be expected under the circumstances, did not prove to be final. 

 As time progressed and the critical study of the group began to feel 

 the stimulus of Rostafinski's work, further revision became neces- 

 sary. Many of Professor Peck's species were either eliminated or 

 transferred by the author himself, but a number still remained 

 awaiting careful examination and final disposition. When Mr. 

 Arthur Lister undertook the task of preparing a monograph of the 

 Myxomycetes, and later when Professor Macbride did the same for 

 the North American species, it became necessary, of course, for both 

 authors to take cognizance of Professor Peck's species and to assign 

 them to definite positions. This, however, was a matter of consider- 

 able difiiculty. That author's original descriptions and figures, 

 judged by modern standards, are in most cases inadequate, and, so 

 far as I can learn, the specimens themselves were never generally 

 distributed, indeed some of them appear now to be lost. A few were 



