and Polyporus valenzuelianus. In sense of Ellis it is the latter. The description 

 covers the former only, for neither of the latter have "white pores". 



Henningsii, Europe, Bresadola. Dr. Hennings found in the old Botanical 

 Garden at Berlin, large quantities of a Polyporus that assumed all kinds of shapes. 

 It was pure white, thin, and had large pores. Sometimes resupinate, with thick 

 subiculum, and rhizomorphal cords, other pleuropodial or even mesopodial. The 

 pileate form was referred to Polyporus lacteus by Bresadola also called a new species 

 Polyporus Hennsingsii. I have an impression that it has since been held to be a 

 pileate form ot Poria Vaillantii. (Cfr pulchella.) 



hepatites, South America, Berekeley. Type rubbish. 



Herbergii, Europe, Rostkovius. Among the many, mostly badly colored 

 and inaccurately named figures that were issued in the pocket edition of the Flora 

 of Germany (Sturm) about eighty years ago, was one named as above. The figure 

 is rather thin, but represents apparently sessile Polyporus Schweinitzii. Fries re- 

 ferred it to Polyporus spongia, which' is same thing, and Saccardo gives it as a syn- 

 onym for Polyporus spongia and on the same page as a valid species. The incident 

 was almost forgotten in Europe except in England where the tradition still persists. 

 Berkeley in 1878 referred to Polyporus Herbergii a specimen in the Edinburg Fungus 

 show, and subsequent English mycologists frequently find it, their specimens begin 

 Polyporus Schweinitzii. 



heteroclitus, England, Bolton. All that is known about it is Bolton's figure 

 (t. 164). While it is not a good figure, I do not question it is Polyporus cristatus, 

 a rare plant in England. Berkeley never found any plant that he referred to this 

 figure. Fries' account was based solely on Bolton's figure. Polyporus heteroclitus 

 is still carried in all the modern traditional works of England, though not a recent 

 mycologist has ever found a plant that could possibly be referred to it, except Cooke 

 who did here refer Polyporus rufescens which has not the slightest resemblance to 

 Bolton's figure. 



hinnuleus, Brazil, Berkeley. It is endorsed now as being Polyporus rheicolor. 

 That looks right to me. 



hirsutus, Juggle, Murrill. No one has known Polyporus hispidus by any 

 other name for so many years, and Murrill's juggle was so similar, that it almost 

 unnoticed. 



hispidans, Australia, Cooke. Based on a single specimen, unknown to me, but 

 badly named and badly classified by Cooke. It is isabelline now but was no doubt 

 a thin, white plant closely related to Polyporus Spraguei as to its surface which 

 is not "hispid" but rugulose granular. If ever found again it should be renamed. 

 I think no one is obligated to perpetuate such misnomers. 



Hobsoni, India, Berkeley = I believe Polyporus obtusus of the United States. 

 Known only from the "type locality" though I have a specimen of Polyporus ob- 

 tusus from Ceylon. 



Hoehnelialus, Europe, Bresadola = Polyporus epileucus for me. 



Hollandii, Africa, Massee = Polyporus colossus. 



hololeucus, Australia, Kalchbrenner = Polyporus Eucalyptorum, type at Berlin. 

 In sense of Cooke who placed it in Polystictus (sic) it is Trametes lactinea. 



holosclerus, Ceylon, Berkeley = Polyporus gilvus, the reddish form called also 

 Polyporus carneo-fulvus. 



Holtermanni, Java, Saccardo, change of polymorphus (q. v. )= Polyporus 

 zonalis probably. 



homalopilus, Cuba, Saccardo. Change of omalopilus which is Polyporus gilvus. 



hypocitrinus, Brazil, Berkeley. Type two little frustules from which nothing 

 can be told. 



hypococcineus, United States, Berkeley = Polyporus croceus. Berkeley pub- 

 lished that it was same as Polyporus Pilotae which is same as Polyporus croceus. 

 No specimen in Berkeley's herbarium but specimens can be found at Upsala and 

 Paris of Berkeley's naming. 



hypomelanus. New Zealand, Cooke. Known only from the type a single 

 specimen. It is rigid, with a thin, reddish brown, smooth crust, hardly any con- 

 text which appears to be white, and small rigid pores, the tissue pale but the mouths 

 black. The general style of the plant is like Polyporus elegans but the specimen 

 has no stipe but had a dorsal sessile attachment. I hardly feel that a species should 

 be maintained on a single specimen which appears to be a sessile example of some 

 plant of the Melanopus section. 



380 



