YELLOW SIMBLUMS. 



We make our "species" and then we tear them down. The more 

 plants we know the less species we find. A letter and figure of a 

 Simblum just received from C. A. O'Connor, Mauritius, raises the 

 question if there is more than one yellow species of 

 Simblum. About a year ago we thought and pub- 

 lished that there were three distinct yellow species 

 of Simblum. Then we saw a series of specimens 

 at Upsala that so intimately connected two of them 

 that we reduced our number of valid (supposed) 

 species to two. Now Mr. O'Connor comes along 

 with his figure and raises the doubt if there is 

 more than one. 



Mauritius is the birthplace of the genus 

 Simblum. A specimen from Mr. Telfair, now pre- 

 served at Kew, was evidently well illustrated by 

 Hooker. It was an obese plant, with a thick stem 

 (about two inches thick), and network merely a 

 continuation (in size) of the stem. The genus is 

 evidently rare in Mauritius, for Mr. O'Connor has 

 only found it recently. He sends a sketch (Fig. 

 269) of his find, 4 evidently well made. It is the 

 exact shape and size of the plant recently described 

 as Simblum Texense from the United States, and 

 which was supposed to differ from the original 

 Mauritian species (Simblum periphragmoides) by 

 its shape and size alone. Of course both "species" 

 may grow in Mauritius, but I do not place much value on that theory. 

 I maintain sometimes that shape and size do make a good species, as 

 in the case of Scleroderma tenerum, but always in connection with 

 a geographical difference. I expect in time we shall have to refer 

 all our yellow Simblums to one species. 



Fig 269 



DAEDALEA UNICOLOR VAR. HYDNOIDEA. 



What was surely an irpicoid condition of the common Daedalea unicolor 

 has been collected several times around Berlin and was called as above by 

 Dr. Hennings. I think it is hardly worthy of a separate name although a 

 curious condition. Dr. Hennings has given a full account of it from which 

 we cull the following. It was first gathered by Dr. Magnus in 1876 and sent 

 to Elias Fries (at that time a very old man) who thought it was a new species 

 of Hydnum related to Hydnum strigosum. Dr. Magnus also sent it to Karsten, 

 who discovered at once that it was a new genus and named it "Phyllodontia 

 Magnusii." It did not take much provocation for Karsten to discover a new 

 genus. He was almost as adept at it as our own Mr. Murrill. A similar 

 form was also distributed "de Thumen, Exsic. 621 as Irpex lacteus, Fr." (sic). 

 I think it was Bresadola who set all this muddle right. At least his correction 

 is found on the specimens both at Berlin and Upsala. 



4 The specimen that Mr. O'Connor sent me in alcohol, fully bears out his figure. 

 451 



