Polyporus splendens and simillimus. I will consider these plants soon in 

 an article on Polystictrs perennis and related species. The current synonymy 

 as recently compiled by Mr. Murrill is very inaccurate and does not at all agree 

 with the type specimens. 



Pomes albogriseus is, I think, a small perfect example of Fomes officinalis 

 ( or Fomes laricis as you wish ) but I am in doubt about it because I have not a 

 very good knowledge of the latter plant. It was called Polyporus by Fries and 

 put in the section with betulinus. The specimens I have, show distinctly the 

 annual zones and I would class it as a Fomes though much softer context than 

 Fomes in general. My specimens have no "crust" which is evident in Fomes 

 albogriseus. Professor Peck's plant has externally the same shape and appear- 

 ance as our common Fomes fomentarius, but the context which is soft and pure 

 white suggests to me only officinalis. 



No specimens of the six following are thought to exist in Pro- 

 fessor Peck's collection. Some years ago the specimens were all 

 moved to inadequate quarters in the Capitol building and some of 

 them had to be boxed and stored. They are supposed to have been 

 lost during this confusion. 



Polyporus anceps 



Bartholomaei 



Burtii 



lactifluus 



Macouni 



perplexus 



Polyporus Burtii from Peck's description is apparently too close to Poly- 

 porus adustus and Mr. Murrill has so referred it as a synonym. 



Polyporus lactifluus is generally supposed to have been Berkeley! but it 

 is by no means certain that Berkeley! "exudes freely a milky juice" even when 

 young. 4 It was described by Professor Peck as having, globose, echinulate spores 

 and Berkeleyi is the only American species known with such a character. Besides 

 it agrees otherwise with Berkeleyi, except as to the " milk." 



No specimens exist of Polyporus perplexus and Profesor Peck tells me he 

 has never collected it but once. Polyporus cuticularis is a common plant, and 

 has been familiar to Professor Peck for years, as it is to every other mycologist 

 who collects fungi late in the season. It has almost always been known in Amer- 

 ican mycology as Polyporus cuticularis, and I believe without question correctly.* 



After Professor Peck was familiar with the plant for years he made a collec- 

 tion that he thought was <Vthis species and called it Polyporus perplexus. The 

 specimens were lost, but Mr. Murrill claims that he can decide that the speci- 

 mens lie never saw, were the same as cuticularis (of American mycology) 

 and that Professor Peck who did see them and decided that they were different 

 was mistaken. Mr. Murrill must have had recourse to some occult science to 

 reach such conclusions. 



Our familiar Fomes that grow on acerous wood with flesh colored context 

 called Fomes carneus and Fomes roseus are often held to be the same. I had 



4 The only reference I know as to any Polyporus exuding a milky juice is Mr. Murrill's 

 statement "that it is a character possessed by other members of this genus." (Polyporus). 

 It is unfortunate that the species are not specified as I think it is not a matter of general 

 knowledge and I question if it is true. 



5 it is badly named and poorly figured by Bulliard, but the same plant grows in Europe 

 and is known there to-day as Polyporus cuticularis. I have it from my European correspond- 



tits under this name and have collected it myself in France, and can find no difference worth 

 mentioning between the European and American plants. They are exactly the same except a 

 very slight difference in the spores (of the two specimens I compared'. Both have elliptical. 

 Smooth, colored spores, in one s-6x 7 and in the other 4^-5 x 7. It would have shown poor judg- 

 ment to have claimed that this constituted a specific difference, had it been known what the 

 difference is. 



37* 



