Octohor, 1007] Myi-iilni^ii-al Bi'Hcliii \',>. 82. 361 



latest work. As to the e.\tra European species, some two thousand or 

 more, they liave l)een mostly described at four centers — Upsula, Berlin, 

 London, and Paris. Tlu're arc without question many reduplications of 

 names. The only thing that can he done as I see it is to hunt up and stud> 

 these specimens where they e.xist. and then take the iirst name, unless there 

 are good reasons for not taking it. .As to genera, the question is not so 

 simple. The genus Polyporus is too large and should be lirokcn up, hut I 

 fell that as much of the old should be retained as possible, particularly the 

 four leading sections with which we arc all familiar. Also the allied 

 genera, Trametes. Daedalea, etc., notwithstanding that the same plant often 

 exhibits forms that 'throw it into another genus.' The leading ideas of the 

 genera are simple and well known, and no system of classification can be 

 (lc\ise(l that does not have its objections and 'exceptions.' 



"In Europe for the last twenty years there have been three men work- 

 ing on dividing the polyporoids into new genera. First, Karsten, then 

 Quek't. then Patouillard. Each has proposed his own system and his own 

 r.ames. and neither has met with nnich general favor, because, in my 

 opinion, of the vast array of new names. Mycologists in general refuse to 

 learn a new language in order to work with old plants. T think many 

 good ideas are expressed in their work, but they would have been better 

 received had they been used to subdivide the old genera, not to re^jlacc 

 them. In .America, Mr. Murrill i;) a little late in taking xm the work, fnr 

 most of it has been done before — at least three different ways. To re- 

 christen the ideas of his predecessors and further add to the Babel of 

 new names, is only making a bad position worse. .\s the b'uropean work 

 h;is mostly failed to meet Vvitb favor for this \cry reason. T can foresee no 

 other fate for the American." 



S.VMPM-: COM .mi: XT S ox .\ KKW rOM.MOX .SPECIES. 



"FoMES LEUCOi'H.\EL-.s. — The very commonest Fomes in our country. It 

 is so close to Fomes applanatus of Europe that I do not believe that any 

 ore would nf)te the difference on a casual examination of the two jilants, 

 .and it is not strange that the plant has been universally called F'omes 

 applanatus in most all American literature. European mycologists have 

 been using the microscope on the .spores of Fomes, and when T sent the 

 plant there it was noted that it had smooth spores, while the spores of 

 Fomes applanatus are rough. It was published in Mycological Notes in 

 1901 (page 00), which T think was the first time attention wa'^ drawn to 

 this popular error which had persisted in American mycology u]) to that 

 date. Recently it has been announced that Leveille first called ihe plant 

 "megaloma." but 1 think (hat is largely guess work, and T have thus far 

 been unable to find ;iny confirmatory evidence, but h.-ive found positive 

 proof thai LcNfilU- drternnned and iinblisluMl the plant ;is "Polyi)orus 

 .■i])planatus," 



"Poi.vi'oKi's LLTiDLS. — The Correct genus to which this plant belongs is 

 now known as Ganoderma. c<)nsistin,g of species with "varnished" ])ilei and 

 colored spores. Most of them, T think, are better called h'omes, but this 

 species with us is not ])erennia!. hence not properly a Imiuics. It is there- 

 fore a (juestion whether to call it Polyporus lucidus. l""omes lucidus or 

 (ianoderma lucidus. It has been known, however, under the specific name 

 "lucidus" for nifire than a hundred years, and it is purely chimerical to try 

 to change that. 



"PoLvsTKTrs i'EK(;.\.MKxrs. — .\ very common plant in the United States, 

 usually growing on oak. It is claimed that ;is the original grew on pine il 

 is not the same as the common si)eoies in the United States, and the name 

 Polystictus pseudo-pergamenus has been proposed. However, the plant is 

 generally known as Polystictus pergamenus. It is a curious fact that this is 

 a \ery rare pl.ant in F.uri^pe, and it was recently brought into the museum 



