2 Mededeelingen van ’s Rijks Herbarium Leiden: 
and have been named by him. A number of LÉveirLE's “types” 
were thus correctly named, but in the renaming they lost their 
historical value, if LEveirk’s work had any value. 
There are five series of numbered boxes at Leiden, about a 
thousand altogether. LÉveILLE'’s “types” are distributed through these 
boxes, hence it was considerable labor to hunt them out, especially 
as they were not indicated in any particular way. 
In the following synopsis 1 have noted iu parentheses the 
original names or numbers cited by LEVEILLÉE, and which have been 
my chief elue in identifying the types. Of course 1 have also taken 
LÉveiLÊ's “descriptions” into account to see that the specimens agree, 
or at least do not too strongly disagree. [ have indicated in each 
case the box number so that it will be an easier task for the next 
man, if any one else ever thinks it is worth the trouble to hunt 
out LEVEILLE’s “types.” 
abnormis (Sist, No. 33). Type not found but from LÉVEILLE'S 
remarks it was probably the common Polistictus pergamenus. 
albo-marginatus (Zie. Mss.) Type in Box 51. It is the common 
Fomes, or perhaps Polyporus, with briek red context which occurs 
in the Kast and is better known and better called Fomes Kermes 
as BERKELEY named it. The white margin may have been “remar- 
quable” at one time, but it is chietly remarkable now by its total 
absence, as it is in all of the many specimens of this species that 
l have seen. To call the plant albo-marginatus is a case of following 
priority back to absurdity. 
anisopilus (pubescens, Fr). Type in Box 5.* It so found in 
SACCARDO as Homes (sic) and it is a thin Polystictus. It is rigid, 
sessile, has gilvus context and medium rigid pores. [t has been 
renamed “Trametes fuscella, Lv.’ It has no setae and is not a 
form of gilvus. 
aulaxina (lacerus) as Daedalea. Type in Box 3.* It is a little 
fragment of a broad-gilled Lenzites, probably “Platyphylla, LÉv.” 
as now named. 
acuta (Kor. No 29) as Trametes Type not found. 
atypus (Pol. No. 30) Type not found. There are two collections 
with this number but neither ean possibly be the collections named. 
aurieulaeformis (JuNcH. Mss.) Type in box No. 77, not JunG- 
HUHN’'s writing, however. It is a single specimen, undoubtedly 
abnormally developed. It has the same context color and setae as 
Polyporus gilvus and may be an abnormal growth of this 
species. 
Blumei (Magamedon). Type in Box 112. It is a thin, glabrous 
