NOTK 1. 



Fomes poinaceus. The plant which I have previously called "Fomes 

 fulvus, Scop, not Fr." following Rev. Bresadola, I have called in this letter 

 and shall call in future Fomes pomaceus. That was the name given to it by 

 Persooon and used by Fries, though the latter considered it a form of Fomes 

 igniarius. It is a frequent plant; almost always in my observation on species 

 of Primus. Monsieur Hariot tells me it grows also on the apple tree (pommier) 

 though that it is directly contrary to the testimony of Murrill. The name 

 pomaceus is the usual name employed in France, and taking it in the broad 

 sense to mean fruit trees in general, it is a good name for it, for this fungus is 

 pre-eminently the Fomes of the fruit tree*. The name Fomes pyunastri also ap- 

 plied to it would be still better. 



Usually the name "fulvus" is a very inappropiate name, for the plant 

 rarely fulvous even When young. I have a specimen from Dr. v. Hohnel that 

 could truly be called "fulvus" but it is the only one I ever sau 



The name "fulvus" has been so bandied about in European mycology 

 that it had better be relegated to the dump. Fries was evidently confused 

 to "Polyporus fulvus." His early account was probably Fomes pomaceus. 

 though some of his remarks do not apply to it. His icones (Polyporus fulvus, 

 original at Upsala) is I think without question the late fall condition of Poly- 

 porus corruscans, and is not a Fomes. His icones, published posthumously, 

 which was made at Femsjo, under the direction of Lindblad, is in my opinion 

 not the same species. His account (Hym Eur. ) certainly does not apply 

 his icones (published) ror is there any Fomes known in Sweden to-day 

 agrees with it. 



It is Fomes fulvus in the sense of Bresadola, not as to Scopoli. 1 am very 

 skeptical as to any one knowing what Scopoli called " fulvus." It is 

 "fulvus" of Hartig; not "fulvus" of Schaefer; not "fulvus" of Marcm 

 not "fulvus" of Qutflet, all of which were different plants. There are 

 many "knots" in it. It is much better 1 think to drop the name. 



NOTE 2. 



Polyporus intybaceus. "It has always been a pux/.le to me whether tl 

 is Polyporus intybaceus or Polyporus frondosus, or whether these two are the 

 same or different. Atkinson gives a good photograph of it under the for 

 name." Letter No. 10, July, 1906. 



The above written from memory I find to be incorrect, and the word 

 "latter" should have been used, as Atkinson called It Polyporus frond< 

 which as I view it now is the correct name Tor the only plant of the two that 

 know. What Polyporus intybaceus is I have never been able to find 

 though I think it is one of the popular errors in England due largely to Stev- 

 enson's cut to call Polyporus frondosus. Polyporus intybaceus. Fries was vt 

 positive that intybaceus was different from frondosus, though the distinct 

 he makes is not clear to me. nor is the figure he cites, but I have probal 

 never seen Fries' intybaceus which he records a> a rare plant found in 

 province of Halland, Sweden. 



