known to reach Europe was from Rawak and was named Polyporus" apiarius 

 by Persoon and a good figure given. The specimen (Fig. 279) "is in good 

 condition at Pans. Next Klotzsch got a specimen from Wight. India which 

 he called Polyporus Wightii, and also gave a good figure of it > He not 

 the setae (See fig. 278, page 3) in the tubes, which are evident even to the 

 naked eye, and gave an exaggerated figure of them and based on them a "new 

 tribe, Scenidium.13 A number of specimens have since reached Europe and 

 are usually referred to Wightii. At the time he described the plant Klotzsch 

 published that it was the same as Boletus favus of Linnaeus, and that was also 

 Berkeley s opinion, and I think was probably true. 14 



Fig. 280 

 Hexagona hirta. 



HEXAGONA HIRTA (Fig. 280). Color dark. Surface covered 

 with a dense coat of rigid, branched, dark hairs. These are often 

 detersive. Context dark, ferruginous. Pores medium (about 8 to 10 

 to cm.) about 5 cm. deep. Owing to the depth and relatively small 

 size of the pores it is often put in Trametes. and it belongs there 

 about as well as in Hexagona. 



History. It seems to be a common plant in Africa, but only in Africa as 

 far as I know. It was most beautifully and accurately illustrated by Palisot-de- 

 Beauyois more than a hundred years ago (1805) and his specimen is at Geneva. 

 Notwithstanding it frequently reaches Europe, but one single specimen has 

 ever been referred to Palisof's name. Fries discovered it was a new species 



11 Persoon at the time was aware of the genus Hexagona, but declined to consider it a 

 genus, stating that the size of pores is only a relative character. 



12 I think the type does not exist. The only specimen I have seen from India is at the 

 British Museum, but was not collected by Wight. 



13 Under these conditions' it seems to me very careless, to say the least, for Mr. Murrill 

 to describe the pores of Hexagona Wightii as "glabrous within." 



14 Klotzsch does not seem to have been consistent in his views of "Boletus favus, Linn." 

 He gives this plant as being the same, and then he refers another plant to Hexagona sinensis, 

 which was only a name-change of "Boletus favus." 



