is very difficult for any one in this country to decide as to the identity 

 of Polvporus Anax from the "description," or any other Polyporus 

 for that matter. From Morgan's work the impression has been gained 

 in this country that Polyporus Anax is a synonym for Polyporus fron- 

 dostis, and Mr. Murrill has recently published that "Polyporus Anax, 

 Berk.,' Grev. 12. 1883, is apparently not specifically distinct from 

 Polyporus frondosus. "- 



The type specimen of Polyporus Anax at Kew is a large, thick 

 specimen that has no resemblance to Polyporus frondosus. Had 

 Mr. Murrill looked at it he would have known at once that 

 it is Polyporus Berkeleyi. and he probably did, but forgot it, in the 

 mass of details that he attempted to learn as to ten thousand different 

 specimens, of twenty-eight hundred alleged different species, in a 

 dozen different museums, during a short vacation trip. Polypnrus 

 Anax is the manuscript name that Berkeley wrote on the specimen 

 when he received it from Lea (No. 547). He sent it to Fries under 

 the same number (547) and Fries described it (1851) and named it 

 Polyporus Berkeleyi. It was undoubtedly the same collection, for 

 Fries quotes the same number. Berkeley probably forgot it, for he 

 lists the name, "Polyporus Anax, B.," in his Notices of North Amer- 

 ican Fungi (1872), though he had never described it under that 

 name.* Tt was one of the species that was dug up from Berkeley's 

 herbarium and published by Cooke after Berkeley had retired from the 

 work. 



POLYPORUS FRONDOSUS. Mr. Murrill, in a recent number 

 of the Journal of the New York Botanical Garden, gives an interesting 

 note on Polyporus frondosus. He states that the Italian chestnuts 

 are often attacked at the base of the trunk by this polyporoid and that 

 it is thought to do considerable damage. The peasants are so fond 

 of eating the fungus that they will not report its presence lest pre- 

 ventive measures be taken by the Government. Of more interest to 

 me, however, than this item is the fact that he employs the name which 

 everybody else uses, "Polyporus frondosus," less than two years since 

 he published elaborate arguments to show that it should be called 

 "Grifola frondosa (Dicks) S. F. Gray." Mr. Murrill is a good man 

 and has a good knowledge of polyporoids, and I hope his contact with 

 the mycologists of Europe has convinced him of the utter futility of 

 attempting to force on the mycological world the absurd nomenclature 

 that results from the system, adopted unfortunately by the institution 

 with which he is connected. I meet a great many mycologists in my 



-Of course he does not use the name " Polyporus" but invents a little, private designation 



of his own. We are quite willing to discuss the specific identity or differences of species, but 



we expect to employ a language that can be understood by our readers. For the benefit of the 



Ur< !iTu en we c ' uote from an y of the modern authors who amuse themselves by shuffling 



Ian" names of the polyporoids, we shall translate their names into the usual mycological 



h&d called 5t Pol yporus subgiganteus, n. s." when he received it from another 



342 



