NO, 9, Lloyd, Polyporoid types of Léveillé. (1912). 3 
Polystictus with shallow pores, which seems frequent in Java. 
There are several collections at Leiden, but in other museums this 
species is usually represented only by ZOLLINGER, Coll. No. 11. 
Blumei (viviparus) as Heragona. Type in Box. 183. In my 
opinion it is a thin, proliferous torm of Hevagona tenuis. 
cinerascens (Pol. No. 82). No type found by me. Specimens 
in Box 182. So named now and evidently taken as the type, but [ 
think does not agree with the description nor can any connection 
be drawn from the old labeling. 
confertus (fwmosus, JuNGH.). Type in Box 29. IT think it is a 
good species. Zorr. 2d Coll. No. 44 is supposed to be the same 
thing and better specimens. It is a thin Polystictus with gilvus 
context and glabrous, rugulose surface. It has no setae. 
convolutus (Zep. Mss.). Type in Box 169. IT should refer it to 
a subproliferous or lacerated form of Polystictus Blumei. 
dilatatus (Pol. sector?). Type in Box 178. It is now correctly 
referred to ““Polystictus Blumei, Lv.” and it is surely the same 
plant. 
flavida, Daedalea (KorrnHars). Type not found, but compare Zwrida. 
Hasseltii (mollis, VAN Hasserr). Type not found by me. 
Haskarlii (ferrugineus, JUNGH.). Types are in boxes 213* and 
249, although labeled “ferruginosus” and probably not from Junc- 
HUHN. It is a common ferruginous Fomes in the East with abun- 
dant setae and is what I have heretofore been informed is Fomes 
Korthalsiï. LEÉverLE’s measurements “4-5 cent.” should be 1 think 
decimeters. This is evidently Fomes Korthalsiù in the sense of 
Lever L's subsequent publications and of the ZorLiNGeEr collection, 
872, named by LÉvrivLé, but not the original. 
Junghuhnii (Daed. betulina, JuNeu.). Lenzites. Type not found. 
Junghuhnii (Ins. Bantam) Favolus. Type in Box 209. This is a 
marked species and [ think is the only specimen in any museum. 
It is a large species with the upper surface strongly “granular- 
squamulose,” arranged in lines. The only similar species [ have 
noted is Polyporus fuscolineatus (Type in Brit. Mus.). 
Korthalsii (Korrr. No. 30). The type cited is in Box 23* and 
has recently been labeled “Polyporus sideroides. Lv. form. apoda.” 
Ll think that is correct although it is a plant of quite different 
appearance from the type of Polyporus sideroides. Both have the 
same context and abundant, globose, colored spores, 8-9 mic. 
(Compare Polyporus sideroides.) 1 believe that Léverrrk had Has- 
karlii confused with Korthalsii in his later publications and in his 
naming at Paris and in Zorr. Coll. 872. 
