LETTER No. 36. 



BY C. G. LLOYD, CINCINNATI, JUNE, 1911. 

 THE POLYPOROID TYPES OF LEVEILLE AT LEIDEN. 



In the early days the old Dutch botanists made many collections 

 of fungi in Java and other Dutch colonies in the East. With the ex- 

 ception of Junghuhn, they were not published by the collectors, but 

 were vaguely named and preserved in the museum at Leiden. In this 

 museum are many old collections by Korthals, Blume, Zippelius and 

 Junghuhn in the East, and Miq-uel in Surinam, but very few of them 

 have the collector's name stated on the label. 



Leveille visited the museum about 1844 and when he went back to 

 Paris he published forty-five "new species" that he had noted in the 

 museum at Leiden. He did not endorse his names on any of the labels, 

 but he cited the collectors, often inaccurately I believe, and the names 

 or numbers that the specimens bore. I have worked the collection over 

 and by means of these citations have been able to identify the larger 

 part of the types. It is possible that another search might produce 

 others that I have overlooked, but I went carefully into the matter and 

 believe that very few of those I did not find will ever be found or at 

 least will ever be identified. In my opinion Leveille did about the 

 poorest work in naming species of any of the old namers, always ex- 

 cepting Kalchbrenner. At that time but few foreign species had ba-n 

 named, but Leveille did not seem to know even these few. In addition 

 he often based species on very inadequate material, little abortive or 

 undeveloped specimens that should not have been named at all. 

 cently all the Javanese specimens have been sent to Bresadola and have 

 been 'named by him. A number of Leveille's "types" were thus cor- 

 rectly named, but in the renaming they lost their historical value, if 

 Leveille's work had any value. 



There are five series of numbered boxes at Leiden, about a th 

 sand altogether. Leveille's "types" are distributed through these boxes, 

 hence it was considerable labor to hunt them out, especially as they 

 were not indicated in any particular way. 



In the following synopsis I have noted in parentheses the origin 

 names or numbers cited by Leveille, and which have been my eh.et 

 in identifying the types. Of course I have also taken Leveill 

 scriptions" into account to see that the specimens agree. <>r at I 

 not too strongly disagree. I have indicated in each case the box m 

 so that it will be an easier task for the next man, if any one^els 

 thinks it is worth the trouble to hunt out Level le is types 



abnormis (Sist, No. 33). Type not found but i 

 remarks it was probably the common Polysti 



TOOVEfcTIT OFfcALIFORNIA 



AT LOS ANGELES 



