grouper des plantes d'apres un seul caractere car il y a toujours des 

 exceptions ou une plante presentera un des caracteres qui sont le 

 trait principal de certains groupes, tandis que dans ses autres carac- 

 teristiques elle se rapprochera davantage d'autres groupes. C'est 

 1'ensemble des caracteres qui fait nos especes aussi bien que nos 

 groupes. 



Le Geaster Dybowski correspond en tous points au Geaster velu- 

 tinus dans ses traits essentiels, c'est a dire sa nature epigee, la surface 

 de son peridium, sa forte columelle. 



Je ne puis croire qu'un des specimens d'une meme recolte a 

 bouche striee suffisant pour faire une espece distincte, car j'ai vu des 

 benches striees et non-striees dans la meme recolte d'une seule espece. 

 Que ce soit la cependant une difference qui nierite un nom special, je 

 1'admets volontiers et je considere le Geaster Dybowski comme une 

 forme a bouche striee du Geaster velutinus. Nous avons un autre 

 cas, exactement semblable dans les Geaster: le Geaster MacOwani 

 (Myc. Notes p. 311, t. 97) que je considere comme etant une forme 

 a bouche striee du Geaster fornicatus, espece qui, dans toutes les 

 parties du nionde a une bouche reguliere sauf dans cette forme sud- 

 africaine. 



A REEXAMINATION NEEDED. 



"It now seems doubtful if the Schweinitz specimen is the true Hydnuin 

 strigosutn, Sw. but a reexamination of the plant would be necessary to settle the 

 question." Banker, in " Alycologia" January, 1910. 



It seems to me important that Mr. Banker should reexamine it 

 at an early date, as on his first examination he included it in a " new 

 genus" of Hydnaceae, and the plant in Schweinitz's herbarium is 

 a Polyporus with but little resemblance to a Hydnuni, and no 

 more resemblance to Hydnum strigosum than it has to a porcupine. 

 Mr. Banker has probably noticed the passing note in my letter No. 24, 

 on this subject, and has elaborated at great length with another new 

 juggle. 



I hope when Mr. Banker reexamines Schweinitz's specimen he 

 will be impressed, as I was when I examined it, with the folly of any 

 one presuming to change Fries' names of Hydnums and at the same 

 time not distinguishing a Hydnum from a Polyporus when he sees it. 



Now that Mr. Banker has made his little " correction " w r e await 

 with interest another little "correction" from the editor of the 

 N. A. F. The plant is a Polyporus, very closely related to Polyporus 

 hispidus, but as far as I know a remarkably distinct "new species." 

 The editor of the N. A. F.,who has examined Schweinitz's herbarium 

 several times, never recognized it as a Polyporus, possibly because 

 it was labeled " Hydnum." Professor McGinty calls it Inonotus 

 Bankeri, in recognition of the valuable work done by Mr. Banker on 

 the subject, and furnishes the following pedigree and description : 

 Inonotus Bankeri, McGinty, sp. nov. 



Hydnum strigosum, Schweinitz (not Swartz.) 



Steccherinum strigosum ;Swartz. Banker, Mem. Torrey Club, 1906: 128. 



475 



