LETTER No. 10. 



Paris, July, 1906. 



A list of specimens received from our correspondents during the past 

 season will be published in our next letter. As many of them are common 

 species, and have been received a number of times, we submit a few 

 remarks on those that are most frequent. At the present time, excepting 

 as to Gastromycetes, we claim no critical knowledge of fungi. There have 

 been about tireiity-eight hundred polyporoids "described," not counting the 

 several hundred "synonyms" given by Fries. To get even a general knowl- 

 edge of the subject will require years of study and investigation. From the 

 United States alone there are about five hundred "species" recorded. Fungi 

 are widely distributed plants. The fungi of Europe and the United States are 

 practically the same. We do not question but the larger part of these 

 twenty-eight hundred are synonyms, but it is a large task to find out what 

 they are and to learn the species that are "good." We shall devote most 

 of our time in the immediate future to work on the European -species, for 

 it is self-evident that as the first and most of the work has been done with 

 European species, and as the American species are largely the same, one 

 must first acquire a knowledge of what occurs in Europe in order to be in 

 position to judge as to those of America. 



There has been so much changing of names lately in the Polyporii 

 that we feel it well to state our position in this regard. The most and 

 best systematic work on Polyporus was done by Fries. His system and 

 names have been in general use for two generations, and are familiar to 

 all. We therefore feel that no attempt should be made to change them 

 excepting in very exceptional cases. It has become quite a fad lately to 

 look up dates of synonyms and shuffle the names around on such evidence. 

 There is no merit in such work, and it produces nothing but confusion. 

 One-half of the old "synonyms" are not true or are so vague that the truth 

 can not be ascertained, and the other half are of no importance if they are 

 true. This, of course, applies to the species considered by Fries in his 

 latest work. As to the extra European species, some two thousand or more, 

 they have been mostly described at four centers Upsala, Berlin, London, 

 and Paris. There are without question many reduplications of names. The 

 only thing that can be done as I see it is to hunt up and study these speci- 

 mens where they exist, and then take the first name, unless there are good 

 reasons for not taking it. As to genera, the question is not so simple. 

 The genus Polyporus is too large and should be broken up, but I feel that as 

 much of the old should be retained as possible, particularly the four 

 leading sections with which we are all familiar. Also the allied genera, 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 



AT LOS ANGELES 



