photography, I think no phalloid should be published unless accom- 

 panied by a good photograph. 



As stated in my recent pamphlet, more has been learned of phal- 

 loids in the last ten years through the work of Fetch, Penzig, Moeller, 

 Long, and Cobb, with their cameras, than was known before. And, 

 it is reliable work. If previous observers had employed photography 

 we would not have to admit to-day that of the one hundred and seven 

 supposed species and forms of phalloids, fifty-eight (or 54%) are 

 doubtful. And the story has not by any means been told as yet. 

 There are vast regions of the earth's surface of which nothing is 

 known of the phalloids, and many are yet to be found and named. 

 We feel that our recent "Synopsis of the Known Phalloids" has 

 brought the subject so that any one can study it intelligently, and 

 if those who have received the pamphlet will use their eyes and their 

 cameras, more will be learned in the next ten years than has been 

 learned up to date. Especially as to the distribution and variation of 

 the "old species," which is of more interest than the publication of 

 the "new species." That which I commend most in the work pre- 

 viously stated of Messrs. Penzig, Moeller, Long and Petch is that 

 they gave full accounts of the "old species" they found as well as 

 the new. Cobb marred his paper with a lot of (fictitious) new species, 

 but there is no criticism to be made of the work of the others. 



IRPEX FLAVUS "KLOTZ." AND POLYSTICTUS FLAVUS "JUNGH." 



1 feel that an error has been made in Saccardo (vol. 6, page 486) and in 

 the determination of many tropical specimens, in referring a very common, 

 tropical Polystictus to Irpex flavus "Klotz." I am well acquainted with the 

 tropical form in Samoa and in the museums, where it is generally called (at 

 Berlin at least) "Irpex flavus, Klotz." Klotzsch's type specimens are at Berlin, 

 and while, by comparison, they seem to be very close to the tropical species, 

 I am satisfied they are not the same plant. The tropical plant, which is wide- 

 spread in warm countries, 2 was first illustrated (and beautifully) by Junghuhn. 

 from Java, under the name Polyporus flavug. It is one of those intermediate 

 species like "Poria" Tulipifera that can be put either in the Polyporoid series 

 or the Hydnpid series. Klotzsch's plant is of arctic origin and came from 

 British America, and I think does not extend even into temperate regions. At 

 least it is unknown from the United States, and if it were the tropical species 

 there surely would not be a gap in distribution between the arctic and tropical 

 regions. By comparison the two plants seem very close, nor could I note any 

 material difference in their "structure" under the microscope. I think, however, 

 they are different in this regard that the arctic species is a true Poria, always 

 resupinate with shallow pores that have thin, angular walls prolonged into teeth. 3 

 The teeth are to a degree awl shaped. The tropical species is normally pilente 

 and while it is the same old genus (in the sense of Persoon) the teeth are 

 much longer and flatter. The color of the two plants is very similar, but is a 

 brighter yellow in the tropical plant. Still the two plants are very close, and 

 if they occurred over the same regions it would be very difficult to distinguish 

 them. 



2 At Berlin there are specimens from India, Africa, Australia, Philippines, Samoa and South 

 America. 



3 Exactly the idea of the genus Sistrotrema in the sense of Persoon but not in the restricted, 

 Friesian sense. 



450 



