Trametes, Daedaiea, etc., notwithstanding that the same plant often ex- 

 hibits forms that "throw it into another genus." The leading ideas of the 

 genera are simple and well known, and no system of classification can be' 

 devised that does not have its objections and "exceptions." 



In Europe for the last twenty years there have been three men work- 

 ing on dividing the polyporoids into new genera. First, Karsten, then 

 Quelet, then Patouillard. Each has proposed his own system and his own 

 names, and neither has met with much general favor, because, in my opinion, 

 of the vast array of new names. Mycologists in general refuse to learn a 

 new language in order to work with old plants. I think many good ideas 

 are expressed in their work, but they would have been better received 

 had they been used to subdivide the old genera, not to replace them. In 

 America, Mr. Murrill is a little late in taking up the work, for most of it has 

 been done before at least three different ways. To rechristen the ideas of 

 his predecessors and further add to (he Babel of new names, is only mak- 

 ing a bad position worse. As the European work has mostly failed to meet 

 with favor for this very reason, 1 can foresee no other fate for the American. 

 Most of my past work on the Polyporii has been in 'the line of collecting 

 specimens, and sending them to authorities in both Europe and America for 

 names. I have received so many conflicting opinions concerning the same 

 plant that in many instances I do not know which to accept. I think that 

 can only be decided by working out the problem in the museums of Europe. 



We hope that our correspondents in America will continue to send to 

 our Cincinnati address all the Polyporii they find. It is only from an 

 abundance of material that any subject can be learned. We do not learn 

 "species" in the museums of Europe. We learn them by studying them and 

 comparing them and handling them. After they are learned we often recog- 

 nize them from very inadequate specimens preserved in the museums. As 

 at the present time we have such an imperfect knowledge of the subject, 

 the following remarks are not offered as being of any critical value even on 

 the most common species. However, as the work proceeds, we hope and 

 expect to learn more. 



Auricularia auricula-Judae or Hirneola auricula-Judae. Probably our 

 most common tremelloid. Grows throughout the world and is eaten by the 

 Chinese. The common name, "Jew's ear," is a slander on the Israelitish 

 nation. 



Daedaiea ambigua. Frequent at Cincinnati on sugar maple trees. It is 

 claimed, probably correctly, to have many names. I think the worst one yet 

 proposed for it is "Aesculi," because a specimen so labeled is found in 

 Schweinitz's herbarium, undoubtedly through some mistake. If descriptions 

 count for anything it ca'n not be "Aesculi," for not one syllable of the de- 

 scription of "Aesculi" applies to it At Cincinnati it is always daedaloid, 

 but Trametes incana is said to be the same thing. 



Daedaiea confragosa. This is very common on willows and at Cincin- 

 nati on Crataegus. It is variable as to color and particularly as to the 

 hymenium, being sometimes polyporoid, sometimes daedaloid, and some- 

 time lenzitoid. It has more names than a Parisian Apache. Most of them are 

 certainly only conditions, but there is a little thin form that seems to me 





