rcction and now calls it Fomes lignosus. Fries sent a specimen to Berkeley as 

 Kamphoveneri, which is not the same as the type in his own collection, but is Fomes 

 semitostus (or close). 



Korthalsii, Java, Leveille. See page 277. 



laeticolor, Philippines, Berkeley, = Fomes Kermes. 



laminatus, Central America, Ellis. This is the name written on the label 

 which was afterwards described as Fomes rubritinctus, with no reference to the orig- 

 inal name. Smith distributed it under the name laminatus. 



Langloisii, United States, Murrill. The cotype specimens I have are old 

 with an indurated surface, and do not show the brown tomentum, but are other- 

 wise old Fomes ribis in every character. The spores are small, 3 mic., colored (not 

 hyaline as described). Langlois found this on Crataegus years ago and sent it to 

 several mycologists. One referred it to Fomes pectinatus, another to Fomes senex, 

 another to Fomes conchatus. Mr. Murrill probably thought it could not be all 

 three of these at the same time, so he called it a " new species." 



Leaianus, United States, Berkeley. Mss. afterwards named Fomes ohiensis 

 (as Trametes). Berkeley sent specimens to Montagne under this mss. name. 



leprosus, Brazil, Fries. No type exists. 



Le Rati, New Caledonia, Patouillard, = Fomes semitostus. 



levissimus, Ceylon, Fries. My notes concerning the type are "very poor, not 

 recognizable, not a Fomes, however." I have since gotten Fomes floccosus from 

 Ceylon, and from description of levissimus, I believe it is probably same. 



ligneus, West Indies, Berkeley. In my opinion, same as Fomes hornodermus. 

 The old type is discolored, but hornodermus is known from many recent collections 

 from the West Indies, and is the only Fomes that seems to occur there, to which 

 ligneus mayj><> referred. Still there is an element of doubt, and for that reason we 

 use the more recent and more certain name. 



Lilliputiana, Brazil, Spegazzini, (as Trametes)= Fomes pectinatus, teste Bre- 

 sadola Unknown to me. No specimen found by me in any museum. 



Lipsiensis, Europe, Batsch. Fig. 130 is a crude cartoon cited by Persoon and 

 Fries as doubtfully representing Fomes applanatus, and dug up and used as a cheap 

 juggle for Fomes applanatus by Murrill and later by Atkinson. The latter writer, 

 after indulging in such work himself, was inconsistent enough to go to Brussels and 

 vote six or eight times for a law outlawing others who engage in similar work. 



lividus, Australia, Kalchbrenner. A species of Poria, types at Kew and Berlin. 



lobatus, United States, Schweinitz. This was an abortion and a distortion, 

 and the "species" was based on this fact. Had it been normal, the author would 

 probably have referred it to "Fomes fomentarius" (sic). It is claimed (which is a 

 guess at best) that it is the same that Morgan called Polyporus reniformis, and the 

 name has been used as a juggle in this sense. 



Lonicerae, Europe, Weinmann, = Fomes Ribis. 



loricatus, Europe, Persoon, = Fomes salicinus (cfr. Myc. Notes, page 469). 



luzonensis, Philippines, Murrill, = Trametes plebia. 



malvenus, Samoa, Lloyd, see tropicalis. 



marginatus, Europe, Persoon. The name was applied to the frondose form of 

 Fomes pinicola when that was supposed to be different from the form on pine wood. 

 As used by modern authors in exsiccatae, it is usually a synonym for Fomes pinicola. 

 Fuckel, however, distributed Fomes annosus under this name. 



medullaris, India, Berkeley. No type exists. Probably it was a Ganodermus, 

 as it was described as laccate, but that is as much as one can ever guess concerning 

 its identity. 



megaloma, United States, Leveille. No type exists, and it is unknown. It 

 was used by Murrill as a juggle for Fomes leucophaeus, apparently a vague guess, 

 because Leveille states "that it was similar but different from Fomes applanatus." 

 Leveille, however, left American specimens which are typical Fomes leucophaeus and 

 labeled them Fomes applanatus, so I do not see how Fomes leucophaeus can logically 

 be held to be the same as Fomes megaloma, when all that is known about the latter 

 is Leveille's vague statement that it differs from applanatus, and there is positive 

 evidence that Leveille thought that leucophaeus was the same as applanatus. There 

 is also some additional evidence at Paris on the subject. Leveille left a specimen 

 which Mr. Murrill claims should be called "Fomes megaloma, Lev." which Leveille 

 labeled Fomes fomentarius (sic). Therefore, according to Mr. Murrill, Leveille 



282 



