3 College of Forestry 
rill (1907, p. 27) the true type specimen of this plant came 
from Mexico and was described by Fries (1888, p. 448) as 
Polyporus prolificans Fr. 
In response to the writer’s request for enlightenment upon 
the obscure early history of Polyporus pargamenus, My. 
C. G. Lloyd of the Lloyd Library, who has made a careful 
study of European polyporoid exsiceati, very kindly wrote 
the following account: 
Fries, who in his early day was limited in his knowledge of 
foreign species to a scanty few that had drifted into Europe, got 
a deformed specimen from Mexico which he named Polyporus pro- 
lificans. It was not proliferous, however, but a malformation — 
a monstrosity. 
Some years afterwards Klotzsch (who was a German working 
in Hooker’s herbarium) sent I'ries some foreign plants numbered, 
which Fries named for Klotzsch by number. Among others was 
one supposed to be the plant in question (Polyporus pargamenus) , 
which IXlotzsch published, but through some transformation of 
the numbers, either on the part of Fries or Klotzsch, this plant 
(or a form of Polyporus abietinus) was published by Klotzsch, 
at least as to part. The specimen is not clearly indicated in 
Hooker’s herbarium today, but is indicated from MJlotzsch’s 
description. Perhaps, however, it was Polyporus abietinus. 
Afterwards, when Fries summarized the subject, he proposed 
Polyporus pargamenus on a plant received from Klotzsch, and 
applied the name to the plant that you have in question. He 
received the plant from a number of correspondents since, and 
he always named it as Polyporus pargamenus, as evidenced in his 
herbarium today. Polyporus pargamenus came into use not only 
at Upsala, but throughout the mycological world, for Fries in 
those days was supposed to know his own species, and those who 
were in correspondence with Fries, such as Berekeley and Mon- 
tagne, engaged in naming plants, used Fries’ name. There are 
several hundred specimens in the various museums in Hurope 
and the United States, practically all of them labelled as above. 
To attempt to change the name at this late date would be abso- 
lutely futile, even if it were based on any merit. To take the 
position that a plant, always called Polyporus pargamenus by 
Fries and every other leading mycologist, be changed to another 
name and claimed to be on the authority of Fries is absurd on 
the face of it, and places. Fries in a false position. 
Polyporacee, this name being founded on Polyporus zonatus Fr. and 
seven other species by Quélet (1886), according to Murrill (1906, 
p- 640). 
®°The close resemblance of these two species, namely Polyporus par- 
gamenus Fr. and Polyporus abietinus Fr. had lead to considerable con- 
fusion in the examination of very old herbarium specimens. 
