FUSCUS. CONTEXT BROWN. 



The species is one of the hardest, heaviest, rigid Fomes. Several collections 

 are known from Cuba and Central America. Montagne confused it (from Cuba) 

 with Fomes senex (from Chile), and the specimen from Cuba was the one he sent 

 Fries as Fomes senex. I am at a loss to explain how Fries could see any relation 

 between it and Fomes graveolens, but he did, and his passing remarks evidently 

 led Cooke to class Fomes senex in section "Merismoidea, with pilei emanating from 

 a common trunk or tubercule," where it is found to-day in Saccardo, Vol. 6. It has 

 not even the most remote suggestion of any such pileate development. Smith col- 

 lected it in Central America and sent it to Ellis, who had it determined in Europe 

 (as Fomes senex), evidently on comparison with Montagne's Cuba specimen. There 

 is no evidence that Murrill knew what Fomes senex was. He renamed it as a "new 

 species" from the Philippines. But he probably judged on general principles that 

 Ellis' specimen was misdetermined, so he renamed it Fomes pseudosenex. The 

 only relation it has to Fomes senex is the confusion with it. 



The specimen Montagne sent Berkeley as Fomes senex was not the Cuban 

 collection that he sent Fries, and Berkeley's determinations of Fomes senex are 

 mostly right. When Berkeley got Fomes pseudosenex he referred it to Fomes 

 rhabarbarinus, or rather misreferred it, for microscopic characters are quite different. 

 Murrill, in addition to naming it Fomes pseudosenex, referred most of the specimens 

 he got to Fomes extensus. 



SPECIMENS. Madagascar, Henri Perrier de la Bathie. 



FOMES HYDROPHILUS. Pileus small, with a brown, rug- 

 ulose, sulcate surface (context dark brown). Pores small, with a 

 noticeable sheen on the mouth. Spores abundant, subglobose, 4^-5, 

 deeply colored. Setae, none. 



A light-weight species, represented at New York by one abundant 

 collection from Jamaica. I have none of the type, hence I am unable 

 to compare its context color and have only scanty notes on the species. 

 I was impressed, however, that it is a good species, and that its most 

 prominent character was its very light weight. 



FOMES TEPPERI I. Pileus ungulate, with black, rimose 

 surface. Context dark brown (Russet). Pores large, long, seemingly 

 not stratified. Setae, none. Subhymenial cells forming a thick 

 layer. Spores are many, subhyaline, 6-7 mic., globose; few are deeply 

 colored, same size and shape. 



Fomes Tepperii, based on a single little specimen which I would 

 not name were it not such a characteristic thing. The general appear- 

 ance to the eye, the color and pores are those of Trametes pini, which, 

 by the way, would be better as Fomes than Trametes, for it forms 

 distinct pore strata. The varying spore colors of this plant demon- 

 strate that having "colored spores" is not always a better character 

 than any other one character. 



256 



