Dr. von Schrenk suggests that it may be a form of Fomes fomen- 

 tarius, but that is impossible, as it has nothing in common with Fomes 

 fomentarius. In the museums, however, Fomes igniarius is often 

 misdetermined as Fomes fomentarius, which is probably the source 

 of this statement. 



The account of Fomes j ..niperinus in North American Flora was 

 evidently made up from the original publication and reproduces a 

 number of errors. The spores are merely stated to be "reddish 

 brown, smooth," (which was copied verbatim). They are so pale- 

 colored that they appear hyaline under a low power. "Spines blunt," 

 etc. (also copied). The plant has no "spines" or cystidia, as originally 

 stated. I think accidental, projecting hyphae have been so mistaken. 



I have long suspected that Fomes juniperinus is the same as 

 Fomes Demidomi, known from a single specimen in the Museum at 

 Paris from Russia. Both are rare plants, the former known from 

 but few collections, the latter from the type only in the museum at 

 Paris. Both grow on-the red cedar (Juniperinus}. Both have a black, 

 rimose surface. Both have reddish context and exactly the same 

 spores. In fact, they are the same plant in every particular, and 

 Fomes Demidoffii is "prior," if one wants to use such an uncouth 

 name. For my part, I do not intend to do so. 



While the plant is rare in our Southern States, it is quite common 

 (I am told by Prof. Long) in the Southwest (New Mexico), growing 

 on various species of Juniperinus. Although it is exactly the same 

 plant as Fomes Juniperinus, and fruiting specimens can not be distin- 

 guished by any character, Mr. Murrill, with his usual liberality, dis- 

 covered that the New Mexican plant was a "new species," which he 

 calls Fomes Earlei. 



Messrs. Hedgcock and Long have recently published that Fomes 

 Juniperinus and Fomes Earlei produce different kinds of "rots" in 

 the host. While I know nothing on this subject, I venture it will be 

 found to be a mistake of some kind when the real truth is learned. 

 I feel so sure that the fruiting bodies are absolutely the same that I 

 question if it can produce a different "rot" in different localities, 

 though I can not say to the contrary. 



CORRECTION. 



In my recent Synopsis of the Stipitate Polyporoids a bad error was made on 

 page 156 in my synonyms. It was the result of mix of "copy," imbricatus and inty- 

 baceus having been run together in taking off the copy. It should read as follows: 



imbricatus, Europe, Bulliard. Generally accepted to be based on an abnormal, 

 bleached specime/i of sulphureus. 



intybaceus Europe, Fries. Said by Fries to be rare and local in Sweden and 

 is unknown to any one now. I think it was based on frondosus that grew horizontal, 

 hence the lobes are more flat. The common plant called intybaceus in England is 

 surely frondosus. Most modern books carry both, but I think no one knows two 

 different plants to correspond. 



Fig. 475 labeled "Lentus ciliatus" should be "Lentus ciliaris," as plant is 

 called in the text. 



The pores of fusco-maculatus (p. 130) should be described as "small" not 

 "large" as inadvertently printed. The photograph of the pores (just above the 

 text) is evidence of this error. 



5 2 3 



