France to-day. I received a beautiful specimen, so named by Monsieur 

 L. Ludwig, Paris (see Fig. 194, made from the specimen). I also 

 have a specimen from C. Engelke, Hanover, Germany, and one from 

 Rev. Bresadola. It is not "Fomes fomentarius, of advanced age and 

 indurated," as stated by Mr. Murrill, being more distinct, in fact, 

 from the usual form of Fomes fomentarius than the previous plant is 

 from Fomes igniarius. It has the same context, long stratified pores 

 and peculiar pore mouths as Fomes fomentarius, but has a black crust, 

 strongly concentrically silicate? I do not question but that it is a form 

 of Fomes fomentarius, but it is well worthy of a distinct name. 



FRIES' VIEWS. I can not say which of the preceding was Fomes 

 nigricans in the sense of Fries, for I have not as yet investigated the polyporoid 

 situation in Sweden. It is difficult to decide from his writings, for they appear 

 to refer to both. His " forma typica," I think, must be the second plant, as 

 Bresadola has it, for Fries compares it to Fomes fomentarius and his Icones 

 <t. 184), while not characteristic of either comes nearer the second plant. The 

 " forma trivialis," from his figures cited (Rostkovius and Quelet), are surely the 

 first plant. I hardly know how we can decide which to call " Fomes nigricans, 

 Fries," though if we leave off the " Fries," Fomes nigricans of most authors re- 

 fers to the first plant. 



PORIA EUPOR A. Plants that have been received from Pro- 

 fessor Otto Jaap are exactly the same as the plant that has been called 

 Poria attenuata in this country. I collected it recently at Albany, 

 and the American name was advised by Professor Peck. I think one 

 would hardly find it in Fries' Hymenomycetes among the " yellow- 

 ish" species When fresh, it impresses me as being more red than 

 yellow, and Professor Peck's color term, "pinkish-ochre," quite well 

 expresses it. In drying, it loses some of the red, but I feel it can 

 never be called "yellow." I am not sure, but think Karsten "saw it 

 first," therefore must get the advertisement. 



POLYPORUS PICIPES. We have a Polyporus in the United 

 States that has no technically valid name. It is generally called Poly- 

 porus picipes, "Fries," and the name Polyporus picipes is as good a 

 name as could be given to it, though it should carry Berkeley's adver- 

 tisement, for it was due to the determination of Berkeley that the 

 plant acquired this name in the United States. In my opinion, it is 

 not the same plant as grows in Europe, and therefore it is somewhat 

 misleading to apply a name to it originally proposed for a European 

 plant. It is, however, generally held now-a-days that there is no use 

 for the name in European mycology, the plant so called there being 

 the same as Polyporus varius, and as the name is superfluous in Europe, 

 I see no reason why we can not take the name for our American 

 plant. Particularly as it is so very appropriate and so well established 

 in America, and by simply substituting "Berkeley" for " Fries" in the 



4 There are two usual forms of Fomes fomentarius, one on birch, which is harder, 



ner Slightly sulcate ; the other on beech, which is softer, larger, and even. Both have 



zon France crusts ' and were very abun dant and distinct on their respective hosts at Barbi- 



374 



