74 THIRTIETH REPORT ON THE STATE MUSEUM. 
Our specimens illustrate this also with the bare exception 
that the pileus is not shining. 
Lenzites Cookei Berk. which is represented by forms with the 
pileus of a cervine hue and with a trameto-lenzitoid hymenium. 
Our specimens of course accord with this since we have those 
from which the types were taken. 
Lenzites proxima Berk. should also be added to this list of 
supposed synonyms. I havea single specimen which accords 
very well with the description of that plant, but it is really only 
a form of the same protean fungus with the thin flattened pileus 
completely overspread by the peculiar tomentum previously 
described. 
Also the form with the polyporoid hymenium agrees remark- 
ably well with a specimen received from Dr. Curtis and labeled 
by him ‘‘ Lenzites Klotzschii Berk.’’ Of this species I have 
seen no description. 
The form with the purely lenzitoid hymenium coincides to a 
great extent with the description of Lenzites tricolor Fr., but 
the pileus is not ‘‘gibbous at the base’’ nor ‘‘ scabrous-tomen- 
tose,’’ neither does it agree in color, so that the two are perhaps 
distinct, though my Curtisian specimens of L. se are 
clearly a form of this protean fungus. 
Another remarkable form which corresponds to no descrip- 
tion that I have seen has the pileus plane or depressed above 
with the hymenium very decurrent and wholly porous. The 
pileus is sometimes so much reduced that the whole plant 
appears like a pulvinate mass of pores. The pores are much | 
smaller in this than in any other form that I have seen. The 
whole plant has a singular deformed appearance utterly unlike 
any of the other forms, and yet no one familiar with the various 
aspects of the species would think of separating this from the 
others. 
That my views of the synonymy of the various forms of this 
plant will prove to be well founded I have no doubt, and that 
they will in that case render necessary the application of some 
single name to the species and a recasting or modification of 
the present characters of the genera Lenzites, Deedalea and 
Trametes is evident. Doubtless the oldest specific name ‘‘ con- 
Jragosa”’ should be retained, no matter in what genus the plant 
may ultimately be placed, although some such name as “ va7ri- 
abilis’’ might be more appropriate and expressive. The other 
specific names might be retained to designate their respective 
forms as varieties. Thus the form known as Trametes rubes- 
cens would become Dedalea confragosa var. rubescens. 
BoLETusS CLINTONIANUS VA. 
This rare species, heretofore found in one locality only, was 
detected the past season at Center, near Albany, where it was 
growing in company with Boletus ampliporus. The recur- 
rence of fungi after long intervals and especially in widely 
