4 Mededeetingen ’s Rijks Herbarium Leiden: 
This specimen may be considered as a good type of the species, 
if there can be one type of a species of such great variability. 
Further in sheet (sub N°. 910, 263—536) four small pieces, 
labelled by PERSOON: „Polyporus junior P. conchatus. Species dubia 
denuo observanda.” These are resupinate; in my opinion small 
fragments of a resupinate form of Homes conchatus. 
2. Polyporus loricatus. PersoON!) distinguishes two forms of this 
species, namely: 
«. glaucoporus and p. phaeoporus. Fries?) includes the latter in 
Fames salicinus, but glaucoporus in Fomes igniarius and following 
this work SACcARDO 3) does the same; but BRESADOLA and LLoyD 
in their notes in PersooN’s herbarium are apparently of a different 
opinion, and inelude glaucoporus also in Fomes salicinus. Thus there 
is in box 952 a specimen from CramrerT „Boletus loricatus « glauco- 
porus” (CHAILLET's writing) with a note from BRESADOLA: „Boletus 
loricatus Pers! — Homes salicinus Pers.” Also there is a specimen 
in box 179, labelled by Persoon „Polyporus glaucoporus (Helvetia)”, 
to which Lroyp added: „This was published by PeRsoON as loricatus 
var. glaucoporus. 1 find no colored setae, otherwise L would suspect 
it to be salicinus.” And in his Myce. Note N°. 35 he says concer- 
ning this speeimen: „In my opinion it is salicinus.” 
Considering these specimens, in connection with the different forms 
and transitions, IL have observed in nature, it seems to me very 
improbable, that Polyporus loricatus « glaucoporus should be ineluded 
in Pommes igniarius. 
Only once 1 found the resupinate form of Fomes igniarius in 
immediate connection with the normal form, but then it seemed 
quite different. 1 think BresADoLA and Lroyp are right, when they 
consider it as a form of Homes salicinus (—= Fomes conchatus.) 
Polyporus loricatus B phaeoporus. In box 337 a specimen from 
CraiLLer: „Voila ee que je prenais pour le Boletus salicinus” (CHAIL- 
LeT’s writing). This form should undoubtedly be ineluded in 
Fomes salicinus as Friest) does. It is a resupinate form of the 
species. 
3. Polyporus salieinus. 
Lroyp does not mention this species, though a fair amount of 
material is present, and some of the specimens are labelled by 
I) Myce. Eur. II. p. 86. 
2) Hym. Eur. Ed. Alt. p. 559 and 561. 
3) Sylloge Fungorum Vol VI p. 181 and 184, 
4) Hym. Eur. Ed. alt, p. 561. 
