persicinus, United States, Berkeley. This may in time prove to be a good 

 species, but at present is known only from the type still at Kew. It appears to 

 have been three or four inches in diameter, sessile. The flesh was no doubt ros\ 

 at first for the name evidently refers to the color. It is very soft and crumbly. The 

 pores are medium, and now fuliginous, probably changed color in drying. The 

 plant is sessile, and grew flat against the host. MurriU's creative power in providing 

 it with a "stem central, thick, conical, dark purple, 5 cm. long, 4-8 cm. thick" which 

 was a pure invention and to me a source of much amusement. The plant is unknown 

 except from this slice at Kew which came from Ravenel. I would class it in Section 

 81. 



pertusa, Africa, Fries (as Trametes) = Polyporus gilvus cotype at Kew. 



Pilotae, Unites States, Schweinitz. It has only recently been demonstrated 

 that this is the same as Polyporus croceus of Europe. 



Pini-canadensis, United States, Schweinitz. Xo specimen mounted in his 

 collection. There is a little frustule at Kew which on comparison seems to be 

 Polyporus croceus. Schweinitz' description, host, habits, color, and texture all 

 disagree with Polyporus croceus and there is some error evidently. I know no 

 plant to agree with Schweinitz' description. 



Pini-silvestris, Europe, Allescher = Polyporus benzoinus as to description and 

 also specimen so named. 



plumbeus, West Indies, Leveille = Polyporus zonalis. Type at Paris. 



polymorphus, Europe, Rostkovius, t. 56 = Polyporus nodulosus and not a bad 

 picture of it. 



polymorphus, Java Holtermann. From the imperfect description and figure 

 appears to be Polyporus zonalis. It was changed to Polyporus Holtermanni by 

 Saccardo. 



polytropus, Ceylon, Berkeley ("Fomes" for Cooke) = Polyporus anebus. 



pseudo-igniarius, Europe, Bulliard. A very good picture of Polyporus dry- 

 adeus. The name is sometimes used as a juggle. 



pseudoradiatus, South America, Patouillard = Polyporus gilvoides which is a 

 much better name for it. 



Ptychogastcr, Europe, Ludwig. Ludwig states that Ptychogaster albus is 

 a conidial form of "its own proper species" which he names as above. Fries and 

 others think it a conidial form of Polyporus borealis. I only know that Ptychogaster 

 albus is not rare in Sweden, that Polyporus borealis is very common in Sweden, 

 and that "Polyporus Ptychogaster Ludwig" has never been found in Sweden by 

 the oldest inhabitant. 



puberula, United States, Berkeley (as Daedalea). The type all known is 

 Polyporus salignus. Murrill uses it as a name change for Polyporus fragrans but 

 there is no evidence either on the label or publication that it is fragrant. 



pulchella, Europe, Saccardo. Found in a Botanical Garden. Picture is surely 

 same thing which Hennings found so abundantly at Berlin and which was called 

 Polyporus Henningsii (q. v.) 



pura, Cuba, Berkeley (as Trametes) = Polyporus immaculatus. The plant has 

 no suggestion of being a "Trametes". 



purpureo-fuscus, United States, Cooke = Polyporus gilvus. 



pusillus, Mexico, Murrill = The name being preoccupied was changed by Mc- 

 Ginty to Polyporus pygmaeus. 



Ramosii, Philippines, Murrill. Has same color, setae and spores as Polyporus 

 licnoides. Specimens are at Berlin and I have a cotype. How it differs from 

 licnoides I can not note. 



repandus, Africa, Patouillard. Unknown to me. The description seems same 

 as secernibilis of Ceylon. 



resinosus, Europe, Schrader. It is a guess at the best but I believe it is the 

 plant called Fomes laccatus in my Fomes pamphlet. Ouelet I think had it right. 

 Bresadola interprets it as being Fomes pinicola. Fries and in sense of American 

 custom it is Polyporus fuscus of this pamphlet which is not "resinous" and has no 

 resemblance to the plant that Schrader had, if either Bresadola, Quelet or myself 

 has rightly guessed it. 



reticulata, Brazil, Fries (as Auricularia) is said to be a synonym for Polyporus 

 conchoides (cfr. Sacc, vol. 6, p. 403). I can not say to the contrary but I hardly 

 believe it. I never looked up the specimen at Upsala if it exists. 



384 



