This curious little Polyporus is quite frequent in the United States usually 

 erumpent from the bark of the smaller branches. It will hardly be f 

 excepting by those who hunt for the small fungi. It is widespread particuLry 

 common m the South and extends to French Guiana and probably other por- 

 tions of South America. Several collections are known from Central Wrica 

 and a long stalked form from Brazil At Kew there is a single colkxtion from 

 Australia 2 ' and at Berlin a typical collection from Japan (Fig 370). 



Polypor 



Fig. 369. 



Pocula, showing natural size, also two specimens x6, and face of pores x6. 



History. This unique little Polyporus has had a curious history. It was 

 first called Sphaeria pocula by Schweinitz and he gave in the Proc., Phila. Acad. 

 Sci. a very fair illustration of it. The genus Sphaeria has the spores in asci, and 

 at that time embraced almost all the Pyrenomycetes. He sent it to Fries and 

 for forty years it was thought to be an Ascomycete as the pores were taken 

 to be the mouths of the asci. When Berkeley received it first from America 

 (Lea) he referred it to Sphaeria Pocula. When Fries divided the Pyrenomycetes 

 he made a genus Enslinia to include this species, not questioning that it was 

 a Pyrenomycete and called it Enslinia Pocula. This genus stood for a number 

 of years and Montagne referred to it a "new species" "Enslinia Leprieurii" 

 from French Guiana, which is exactly the same plant as Polyporus Pocula. 28 

 In 1849 Berkeley received it from Curtis, growing on Rhus and published it 

 as Polyporus cupulaeformis, noting that it had the habits of "Sphaeria cupulac- 

 formis, Schweinitz." Berkeley was afterward aware that it was the same as 

 Polyporus Pocula as he at first labeled a Nicaraguan collection Pqlyporus cupu- 

 laeformis, 29 but published it as Polyporus Pocula. 



To Cooke should be given the credit of making known that the little 

 plant which passed for so many years as a "Sphaeria" was a Polyporus. He 



27 This was received and determined by Cooke and included in the Handbook as Poly- 

 porus cupulaeformis (a synonym for Polyporus Pocula). I think it is correct. A section 

 shows the same "structure," though the surface is more rugulose than the American plant. 



28 As this had not been published it was not raked up in the recent compilation (N. A. F.). 



29 I think this label is in Berkeley's writing, but can not be sure, as it is written in 

 printed characters, as are many of the "U. S. Exp. Exped." labels. It was surely on Berkeley s 



authority. 



45 



