albo-marginatus (Zipp. Mss.) Type in Box 51. It is the common 

 Fomes, or perhaps Polyporus, with brick red context which occurs in 

 the Hast and is better known and better called Fomes Kermes as Berke- 

 ley named it. The white margin may have been "remarquable" at 

 one time, but it is chiefly remarkable now by its total absence, as it 

 is in all of the many specimens of this species that I have seen. To 

 call the plant albomarginatus is a case of following priority back to 

 absurdity. 



anisopilus (pubescens, Fr.). Type in Box 5.* It is found in 

 Saccardo as Fomes (sic) and it is a thin Polystictus. It is rigid, ses- 

 sile, has gilvus context and medium rigid pores. It has been renamed 

 "Trametes fuscella, Lev." It has no setae and is not a form of gilvus. 



aulaxina (lacerus) as Daedalea. Type in Box 3.* It is a little 

 fragment of a broad-gilled Lenzites, probably "Platyphylla, Lev." as 

 now named. 



acuta (Kor. No. 29) as Trametes. Type not found. 



atypus (Pol. No. 30). Type not found. There are two collections 

 with this number but neither can possibly be the collection named. 



auriculaeformis (Jungh. Mss.). Type in box No. 77, not Jung- 

 huhn's writing, however. It is a single specimen, undoubtedly abnor- 

 mally developed. It has the same context color and setae as Poly- 

 porus gilvus and may be an abnormal growth of this species. 



Biumei (Magamedon). Type in Box 112. It is a thin, glabrous 

 Polystictus with shallow pores, which seems frequent in Java. There 

 are several collections' at Leiden, but in other museums this species 

 is usually represented only by Zollinger, Coll. No. n. 



Blumei (viviparus) as Hexagona. Type in Box 183. In my 

 opinion it is a thin, proliferous form of Hexagona tennis. 



cinerascens (Pol. No. 82). No type found by me. Specimens 

 in Box 182. So named now and evidently taken as the type, but 1 

 think does not agree with the description nor can any connection be 

 drawn from the old labeling. 



confertus (fumosus, Jungh.). Tvpe in Box 29. I think it is a 

 good species. Zoll. 2d Coll. No. 44 is supposed to be the same thing 

 and better specimens. It is a thin Polystictus with gilvus context and 

 glabrous, rugulose surface. It has no setae. 



convolutus (Zipp. Mss.). Type in Box 169. I should refer it 

 to a subproliferous or lacerated form of Polystictus Blumei. 



dilatatus (Pol. sector?). Type in Box 178. It is now correctly 

 referred to "Polystictus Blumei, Lev." and it is surely the same plant. 



flavida, Daedalea (Korthals). Type not found, but compare 

 lurida. 



Hasseltii (mollis, van Hasselt). Tyne not found by me. 



Haskarlii (ferrugineus, Jungh.). Types are in boxes 213* and 

 249, although labeled "ferruginosus" and probably not from Junghuhn. 

 It is a common ferruginous Fomes in the East with abundant setae 

 and is what I have heretofore been informed is Fomes Korthalsii. 

 Leveille's measurements "4-5 cent." should be I think decimeters. 

 This is evidently Fomes Korthalsii in the sense of Leveille's sub- 



