This species is represented by two collections at Kew, one from Toowoomba 

 the other from Brisbane, Australia. It was illustrated in Cooke's Handbook 

 but the color I judge from the specimen is too bright. The plant is I think more 

 brown than red. . 



SYNONYMS, NOTES, AND REJECTED SPECIES. 



We follow the usual custom in this section of citing the authors of these 

 "new species," and we wish them much pleasure in the advertisement. 



alpinus, Europe, Sauter. Unknown to me. From the description seems to 

 be Rostkowii or rather scaleless squamosus. 



asperellus, Europe, Leveille. Probably based on a crude attempt to draw 

 Pes-caprae. 



bulbipes, Europe, Beck. Known only from the illustration and probably the 

 same as Boucheanus. Spores seem a little different but that is all. 



cadaverinus, Europe, Schulzer. Something abnormal. The type drawing 

 (Kalchbrenner, t. 35) is found in Fries' collection at Upsala. 



Campbelli, India, Berkeley. Known only from a thin section. Probably 

 could not be determined on comparison. 



caudicinus. A cheap juggle of Polyporus squamosus. It originated in 

 Europe, but has been copied in the United States. 



Clusianus, Europe, Britzelmayr. Unknown except from the crude work of 

 Britzelmayr. Seems to be compared to squamosus. 



decurrens, United States. Underwood. See page 79. 



Earlei, United States, Underwood=griseus. I have a co-type in my collection. 



flavo-squamosus, United States, Undcrwood=Polyporus Ellisii, and is a much 

 better" name for the plant. 



flavovirens, United States, Berkeley. The plant is fairly frequent in the 

 United States and has been generally known under this: name which is an ex- 

 cellent name for it. I am sure now that it is unfortunately the same as cristatus 

 of Europe. Schweinitz had it right and was the only American mvcologist who 

 did. 



Forquignoni, Europe, Quelet. In my opinion the same as Boucheanus. 



fuligineus, Europe, Persoon. Neither Persoon nor any one else apparently 

 has seen the plant and it was only a change of name of Bulliard's Platd 469. 

 Quelet records the species in his early work but omits it in his final work. Fries 

 states that he has seen specimens collected in Sweden but none are found in 

 his herbarium or elsewhere that I have seen. As to shape and color it is sim- 

 ilar to Polyporus politus and may have been based on small specimens of that 

 species. The name has no application to it. 



hispidellus, United States, Peck. Given with a doubtful mark by Murrill 

 as a synonym for Polyporus radicatus. 1 suppose the doubtful mark indicates 

 a guess. K so, it was a bad guess for it lias no resemblance or relation to 

 Polyporus radicatus. Nor do I sec any occasion for guessing as he examined 

 Peck's herbarium where good material is preserved and had he known Polyporus 

 radicatus would have known that it had no resemblance whatever to hispidellus. 



holocyaneus, United States, Atkinson. I have not seen this, but it is surely 

 the same as caeruliporus, the most striking and noteworthy mesopodial Polyporus 

 that we have in the United States. If the author of this "new species" (new 

 to him apparently though well known to every one else) ever heard of Peck's 

 remarkable species he was surely remiss in not mentioning the fact when he re- 

 described the same thing. 



89 



