No. 18. V. d. Lek, Persoon’s types of Polyporus [1913] 9 
POLYPORUS. 
Polyporus adustus. 
There is only little material of this species. In cover sub N°. 10, 
262791 we find a specimen labelled by PERSOON: „Polyporus 
adustus Boletus pelloporus Burr.” („specimen poor but evident,” 
Lroyp ) From the preserved material of this and allied species, we 
cannot judge, what was PERsOON’s opinion about the limitation of 
the species. Thus we find in box 12 a specimen labelled by Per- 
SOON: Polyporus fumosus. This specimen „has dark pores and would 
generally be referred to adustus.” (LLoyp). This is all that is to be 
found of these forms, and therefore of little importance for pur- 
poses of nomenclature. It seems to me that the limitation of the 
species of this group is not yet a natural one, and that there is 
some confusion in nomenclature. Most ot the specimens, found in 
the collection of ’s Rijks Herbarium under the name Polyporus 
fwmosus (Erris and EveRrHART, RABENHORST, DE THüMEN) are speci- 
mens with dark pores, agreeing better with the description of 
adustus, then with that of fumosus. (PERSOON Myce. Eur. IL p. 65: 
„imbricatus fuligineo-pallidus, pileo carnoso-fibroso undulato, poris 
concoloribus parvis.) 
Polyporus amorphus Fr. —= Polyporus aurcolus Pers. Only a resu- 
pinate specimen in cover N°. 910, 277— 263, labelled by PERSOON: 
„Polyporus laneus Myce. Eur. 2.” It ist he same as resupinate Poly- 
porus amorphus FR. or aureolus PERS. 
Polyporus citrinus Pers. — Polyporus sulphureus FR. No material 
of importance. Only we find in box 379 a specimen labelled by 
LEVEILLE: „Polyporus cristatus? giganteus?” 
Polyporus confluens. 
In cover sub N° 910, 262—890 there is a specimen labelled by 
PERSOON: „Boletus pachypus. Boletus confluens ALBERT et SCHWEINITZ, 
consp. fung. p. 244” It is not the usual form. BRESADOLA calls it 
„Pelyporus confluens ArB. et Scnw. var. pachypus Pers. In LLoyD's 
opinion it is a form of Polyporus confluens and he adds: „it is surely 
not a synonym of politus, as stated by Fries.” (Myce. Note 35.) 
Polyporus euticularis. 
Lroyp thinks (as others do, f. i. G. WiNrER in RABENHORST) that 
what is now known as Polyporus cuticularis. (Burr) FR. was called 
Polyporus triqueter by Persoon. He says: „It is a common plant 
in France and must have been known to PERSOON, who described 
it, IL think, as trigueter.” Although this supposition seems rather 
problable, especially when connected with the description of Poly- 
