SECTION GANODERMUS. 



ALLUANDL Pileus with a smooth, black crust. Stem i cm 

 thick, 15 cm. long, laterally (dorsally) attached to the pileus, smooth, 

 black crust. Pores small, round, some large and sinuate, with thin 

 walls and concolorous mouths, long, reaching the crust. Context scanty, 

 cinnamon. Spores 10x16-18 with a distinct apiculus and distinctly 

 rough. Known from a single specimen at Paris (in the cupboard) 

 from Africa. 



UNNAMED. Pileus with a thin crust, mat, minutely velvety, 

 with a few darker, slightly metallic zones. Context very 'thin, pale 

 cinnamon. Pores I cm. long, minute, pale cinnamon with concolorous 

 mouths. Stipe mesopodal, 24 cm. long, sulcate, with sterile branches, 

 covered with a smooth, black crust. Spores strongly reticulate (the 

 only reticulate polyporoid spores known to me) obovate with small, 

 apiculate base, 12x20, pale colored. Type found by me unnamed, 

 without label, in a cupboard in the Museum at Paris, the origin un- 

 known but probably from Africa. I do not name it as I presume they 

 will wish to do so at Paris. 



HILDEBRANDI. Pileus, context, and stem exactly the same as the small 

 form (ramosii) of Polyporus rugosus. Spores conidial, ovoid, 4-5x5-7, dis- 

 tinctly rough. Known from one specimen at Paris. I suspect it is a conidial 

 form of Polyporus Ramosii. 



4. ANOMALOUS SECTION WITH A FALSE STEM. 



PISACHAPANI. This is, I judge, an anomalous species. It is flat, 

 branched like the fingers of a hand, and the stem is made of discs growing 

 from each other, as if the plant started to produce a succession of pilei and 

 then changed its mind and produced a false stem. The surface is smooth, 

 laccate. Nees named and figured it from Java. I found a single specimen 

 of this curious growth from Samoa. In my specimen the pores are not per- 

 fectly formed and I find no spores. 



SYNONYMS, REJECTED AND UNKNOWN SPECIES. 



I doubt if a more cumbersome, inaccurate, or impractical system could be 

 devised for the naming of plants than the one that has been adopted by "Science" 

 in the naming of fungi. The European work of Persoon and Fries was based 

 for the most part on a practical knowledge that they had of the growing plants, 

 and the greater part of their work was of the highest merit and will always 

 stand. The only weak part is the species that were founded on old pictures, 

 often inaccurate and erroneous, and the names were based often on the in- 

 accuracies of the pictures. For many of them no plant is known that corre- 

 sponds. 



As to foreign (to Europe) species the whole subject has been a haphazard 

 proceeding from the start. The earlier namers had very scanty material, but they 

 based a "new species" on almost every collection that they received, and many 

 of them were evidently but slight varieties or individual forms to which the 

 same authors would have paid no attention had they seen the forms growing 

 in their woods. As the years rolled by new "authorities" came into the field 

 and each one has discovered a large part of the plants he got from foreign 

 countries to be "new species" and gave them names, although not one of them, 

 I think (except Bresadola), has made any serious endeavor to learn the names 

 that others have given to largely the same plants. 



107 



