colored species, as is this type. Fries described it as thin, and it passes in Saccardo as a 

 Polystictus. It is not a Pplystictus but a lignescent Polyporus, or perhaps a Trametes. 

 Rev. Rick finds it common in Brazil. 



NOTE 8. Polyporus Palliser. I doubt if there was ever a worse confusion made 

 in "science" than the publication of this species. There are two specimens found in 

 Berkeley's herbarium, both the same collection (?), surely the same plant. One was 

 labeled "Polyporus Palliser, Berk., Palliser, Brit. N. Am. Exp. Expedition, col. E. Bour- 

 -" " " 



gean, 1857-8." The other is labeled "Trametes arcticus, Carleton, Brit. Amer. 1858." 

 It Is certainly only a form, but quite a distinct form of Polyporus carneus, "Nees, " so 

 common on pine in the Eastern United States. Whether our carneus grows in Jav 



whether Nees ever saw it is quite another story. I have just received a fine specimen of 

 the plant from Dr. W. H. Henderson, California, which corresponds exactly on comparison 

 with the specimens at Kew. The context and pores are the same as the ordinary form 

 of Polyporus carneus, but the surface is silvery white with appressed fibrils, and is a 

 very different looking plant from the usual form. However, it is in the publication that 

 the scientific part comes in. As previously stated, Berkeley labeled one specimen "Poly- 

 porus Palliser ; ' ' another, which is surely the same and probably of the same collection, 

 "Trametec arcticus, Berk." He never published either. Cooke referred to "Polyporus 

 Palliser, ' ' an Australian species which had little resemblance to it, and which had then 

 been named twice by Berkeley. He published (Grev. 10, 98) "Polyporus Palliseri, Berk, 

 in Hab. Victoria, Queensland," and drew his description from his Australian misdetermina- 

 tion. He included it the next year in the section of Fomes with "rhabarbarino v. ferrug- 

 ineo" context (it had just been described as having white context) as "Fomes Palliseri, 

 Berk, in Herb. Trametes arcticus, Berk.," and Saccardo so compiles it in vol. 6, p. 20i, 

 as coming from Victoria, Queensland, and gives the description drawn from the Australian 

 misdetermination. Cooke (Grev. 15, 20) describes "Polyporus argentatus, Cooke P. 

 Palliseri, Grev. 10, 98 (non-Berk.)" this time in the section "mollis" of Polyporus, 

 though less than a year before he had referred the same plant to Fomes. He gives ex- 

 actly the same description that he previously gave, and Saccardo again compiles it (in 

 Polyporus) with exactly the same description word for word as he described to "Fomes 

 Palliseri, Berk, in Herb." on another page. 



Taking all this into consideration I can not figure out that our American plant has 

 ever been formally described. As it appeared in Saccardo as coming from Australia it 

 was of course not compiled in North American Flora, although the specimens at Kew came 

 from North America and the author of North American Flora claims to have made ex- 

 haustive studies of the American species at Kew. 



NOTE 9. "Polyporus valenzuelianus ( sapinus ?) ( hemileucus)" Letter 

 No. 30. This should read Polyporus cubensis ( supinus ?) ( ' hemileucus). 



Polyporus cubensis is a plant that is quite peculiar, but changes with age so that 

 it has been badly confused. When fresh it is white, and Montagne so described his speci- 

 mens ; but with age a dark red stain develops on the upper surface, and finally the whole 

 plant becomes dark. The type of cubensis has that character now and the change has 

 been quite evident since Montagne described it. Hemileucus of Berkeley is the same 

 plant, also valenzuelianus in the sense of Berkeley (not Montagne). Polyporus (not 

 Fomes as found in Saccardo) supinus is doubtful to me. The only type I have seen is in 

 the British Museum. It is small and old, and difficult to determine. Berkeley misde- 

 termined valenzuelianus (and endorsed resupinatus, Swartz). Cooke used the date 

 dictionary and gave this as a synonym for supinus, and Murrill rakes it up and arranges 

 it with his date dictionary and takes supinus as the earliest date. It is quite an early 

 date, and also quite a different plant. 



NOTE 10. Xylaria tentaculata. On several occasions I have received from Miss 

 Mary Fitzgerald a curious plant that I have been unable to determine. It had hyaline, 

 conidial spores, but never did I find a specimen with ascus spores. I sent it to several 

 and no one could determine it. Recently I received from Miss Fitzgerald a single speci- 

 . men of a very peculiar Xylaria with perfect spores and little processes such as I know in 

 no other species of Xylaria. I looked up the "literature" and supposed it was Xylaria 

 tentaculata, "described" by Berkeley from South Carolina. I so published it (Letter No. 

 30) with a question mark. At Kew I recently looked up the type of Xylaria tentaculata. 

 It is not the plant I so determined, but is the plant that has so long puzzled me, and 

 which I doubt is even a Xylaria. All of which goes to show how much can be learned 

 from our literature. 



NOTE 11. Correction. In Letter No. 29 the last sentence of the report of plants 

 from H. H. Bartlett, beginning with "while occasionally," does not refer to Scleroderma 

 verrucosum but to Polyporus cristatus, the latter name being omitted through error. 



NOTE 12. Polyporus carneus, or Fomes carneus as it is called, is quite frequent in the 

 United States. It is referred to "Nees," who published from Java a picture from which 

 our American plant was named. I think it is quite doubtful if the reference is correct, 

 as I do not know this species from Java ; but it is immaterial as the name for our American 

 plant is so firmly fixed that it would only cause confusion and avail nothing to try to 

 chang it. Polyporus carneus has been given in Europe (and copied in America) as a 

 synonym for Fomes roseus of Europe. In my opinion that is an error. They are quite 



different plants. Fomes roseus is a true Fomes, ungulate in shape, and as to form 



s Fomes fomentarius. Polyporus carneus is always thin and flat. I think it is 

 rather a ligneous Polyporus than a Fomes. It is very close to Polyporus Feei of South 



America, perhaps the same species, and Polyporus Feei passes (in error, however) 

 Polystictus (sic). 



