~ 
The Biology of Polyporus Pargamenus Fries 35 
Some years ago Bresadola got a clue to the Klotzschian history, 
and in one of his papers called the plant “ Polyporus biformis”’. 
It was really based on probable fact but Bresadola only followed 
it for a short time, for, as every one else who attempts to change 
established nomenclature for some trivial reason, he has since 
receded from his position. 
In the meantime, however, the plant was found in southern 
France, where it is an extremely rare plant, and a specimen 
drifted in to Boudier. ‘The latter submitted it to Patouillard, 
and he being in touch with Bresadola, gave it the name Bresadola 
was using at that time. This is the reason why the plant was 
illustrated in Boudier’s “ Icones” as Polyporus biformis. : 
There is a strong probability that the Mexican plant which 
3 came originally to Fries was but a malformation of this same 
plant. Fries made two mistakes regarding it: First, in con- 
sidering that it was a species when it was simply an abortion 
and should’ not have been named; and second, in naming it 
“prolificans ” when it was not proliferous, but malformed. 
Although the plant, through some unfortunate chance, still 
remains in Fries’ herbarium, being one of the very few that have 
persisted, Fries never recognized it as being the same plant that 
he got normal specimens of from several correspondents and 
always called Polyporus pargamenus. It seems to me that any- 
one that substitutes this plant for Polyporus prolificans is put- 
ting I’ries in a ridiculous position if he writes Fries after it, for 
he is virtually claiming that Fries’ blunder should take pre- 
cedence over his intelligent work. I believe, if Fries were alive 
today, he would resent it as vigorously as I do. It is unfor- 
tunate enough when a man makes a blunder of this kind, but 
doubly so if it is brought up and paraded years after his death. 
As to the question whether the particular specimen sent by 
Klotzsch to Fries is the plant that you have in question (Poly- 
porus pargamenus) or a form of Polyporus abietinus, my impres- 
sion is that the particular specimen from Klotzsch is not pre- 
served in Fries’ herbarium. I am sure, however, that there are 
several specimens that were named Polyporus pargamenus and 
that they are the same plant that you are considering, and if 
you virtually make the charge that Fries, in addition to not 
recognizing the old abortion, did not distinguish between Poly- 
porus pargamenus and P. abietinus, I hardly feel that you will be 
able to*maintain it. é 
You ask “what will become of Fries’ Polyporus prolificans? ” 
I think it will remain in a state of “innocuous desuetude” as it 
has remained for nearly one hundred years, and would have 
remained forever if it had not been dug oe as a juggle. 
The following list of names may be taken as a partial index 
to the synonomy of Polyporus pargamenus: 
