PROFESSOR CHARLES H. PECK. 



At various times portraits of mycologists have been presented 

 in "Mycological Notes," but never one that has given me greater 

 satisfaction than does the portrait of Professor Charles Peck, whom I 

 consider the father of systematic American mycology. When he 

 began his study years ago, very little had been accomplished with 

 American fungi, and it will therefore not be out of place to give a 

 short preliminary resume. Indeed, it is necessary that this should be 

 done in order to show the exceptional difficulties under which Pro- 

 fessor Peck labored. 



Schweinitz, who got his introductory knowledge from his own work in Europe, 

 published a list of his own determinations from North Carolina and then from 

 Pennsylvania. At this time, about the beginning of the century, the subject was 

 practically unknown in America and he was absolutely alone. Consequently little 

 attention was paid to his efforts until yearg after his death. 



Then came Curtis and Ravenel in North Carolina, who, however, were col- 

 lectors rather than mycologists. Curtis sent all of his specimens to Berkeley for 

 naming, and Berkeley advised him of the names by numbers, on which uncertain 

 basis Curtis published the little he accomplished. None of his work showed much 

 personal knowledge of the subject; for not one out of ten of the specimens that he 

 sent to Berkeley to be named was Curtis able to suggest even a generic name. Not- 

 withstanding this, Berkeley published them under the advertisement of "Berkeley 

 and Curtis," and this deception is still carried on in nomenclature, although Curtis 

 had about as much to do with the naming of the plants as did our Professor Mc- 

 Ginty. This is one of the frauds that is winked at in our current usage. 



Frost began his studies in Vermont and published a list of specimens in Tuck- 

 erman's Catalogue. He seems to have determined his species largely from 

 European literature, and did very remarkable work considering the difficulties under 

 which he labored. 



When Professor Peck began his work with fungi forty odd years 

 ago, the foregoing American mycologists only had preceded him. 

 He got his first ideas from Curtis, from whom he purchased a set of 

 specimens. At that date it was extremely difficult to get the names 

 of even the most common plants, but Professor Peck persevered, and 

 has now been working on this subject for so many years that he has 

 acquired an exceptional field knowledge of fungi, especially agarics, 

 no other American mycologist being his equal. In his capacity of 

 State Botanist of New York, he has issued 45 Annual Reports, the 

 first of which is called the 21st Annual Report, 1868, and the last, 

 which is known as the 65th Report, 1911. These Reports have been 

 devoted largely to a description of "new species," and I think all 

 records have been lost of the number even, of "new species" tha't he 

 has proposed. In-fact, Professor Peck has given names to almost all 

 our American species of agarics. Of the validity of many of these 

 "new species," I venture to express serious doubts; for, while I know 

 very little about agarics, it develops in the Gasteromycetes and Poly- 

 poraceae, which have been my special studies, that the fungus flora 

 of the temperate world is practically the same and that most "new 

 species" that have been named, not only in America but in Europe, 

 are really old species not recognized. This, however, is natural in 



510. 



