have gotten more, had he in all cases left specimens from which his species could be 

 decided. The next work by Berkeley, through Curtis and Ravenel, established a 

 tradition about American species which was mainly pursued by the following gen- 

 eration, Peck, Ellis and Morgan. Most of it was correct, but in some cases American 

 names were used for plants of Europe, the identity of which was unknown to Berkeley. 

 In quite recent years Murrill has published much. He has proposed so many new 

 names and made so much confusion that no one pays much attention to them. At 

 the present time young Overholts is doing much better work on the subject. 



As to foreign species it is the same old story. Collections drift into Europe and 

 the largest part are discovered to be "new species" "described" and "named," 

 scraped up and embalmed in pidgin Latin in Saccardo. As the descriptions usually 

 tell nothing, and not one out of a hundred can be determined with any probability 

 of truth, the embalming process in Saccardo is the last that is ever heard as to most 

 of them. When the specimens are preserved in accessible museums, we have hunted 

 them up and studied them, and have adopted the names for those that we think 

 have merit. The naming of "new species" in Europe, however, in the past, appeals 

 to me as very much of a hit-and-miss affair. In my belief, Bresadola is the only 

 one who has indulged in this pastime who has made any serious endeavor to learn 

 the identity of the "old species." 



Berkeley named the most of the foreign species, and there are relatively few 

 that are at all common that did not at some time drift in to him. As his herbarium 

 has been well preserved, Berkeley's names may be had for most of the common 

 species. The species of Europe and the United States are, I believe, all named (or 

 multinamed), excepting perhaps a few, rare ones in the outskirts of Eastern Europe 

 or Western United States. As to foreign ones, the common ones are named, but 

 there is an embarrassingly large number of rarer collections that I receive from 

 foreign countries, particularly from Japan, that I am unable to identify with any 

 named specimen that I have found in the museums. Some of them have been pub- 

 lished in this pamphlet, but most of them remain unnamed in our collection. 



We have divided the genus Polyporus into five general divisions following 

 closely the lines used in dividing the genus Fomes, and basing the general divisions 

 on color features of the context, pores and spores. The spores of the various species 

 are recorded as we measure them, and are intended only to give an idea of shape and 

 size. They vary a few microns in size on the same slide, and our measurements 

 are of the largest spores that w 7 e note. In all the colored spored species and in most 

 of the soft, fleshy, white spored species, the spores are usually in abundance. Where 

 spores are not found it is generally in species of a hard, dry texture. 



As in most groups of fungi, even the Agarics, the hymenium of some species 

 is characterized by the presence of deeply colored setae, corresponding to those 

 found in the Thelephoraceae and forming there the "genus" Hymenochaete. Ellis 

 proposed a "new genus" based on them, but no one ever followed him, as those 

 who work with Polyporus, do not take setae so seriously as those who work on 

 Thelephoraceae. A few species have large hyaline, many celled "cystidia" on the 

 hymenium. No one has proposed a "new genus" based on these "cystidia" in 

 Polyporus, although it has been done when they occur in Hexagona. Other species 

 have deeply colored setae-like hyphae imbedded in the tissue, similar to those found 

 in Fomes pachyphloeus (cfr. Fomes Synopsis, p. 261), and forming the genus "Oxyu- 

 ris" for McGinty. I have not heard whether he proposed to make a "new genus" 

 for these species in Polyporus or to include them in his Fomes genus. 



When definite color terms are used in this pamphlet, they are taken from 

 Ridgway's Standard, and the same remarks are applicable under this head as in 

 the preface of our Fomes pamphlet. 



I have worked several years trying to get the straight of the species of Polyporus, 

 and there has not been much trouble excepting in connection with the white species. 

 Some in this section, viz., chioneus, trabeus, lacteus, destructor, albidus, etc., are 

 not as clear to me yet as I wish they were. We have in our museum abundant 

 specimens, particularly from the United States, more in number perhaps than in 

 all other museums combined, and we extend our thanks to our many correspondents 

 who have aided us with specimens. It is only by constantly handling specimens 

 that one gets thoroughly familiar with them and their characters. We have worked 

 over the specimens in all the principal museums of Europe and the United States, 

 and acknowledge our indebtedness to the various curators of these museums for; 

 every courtesy in the work. 



292 



