Sequoiae, United States, Murrill = Polyporus resinaceus. 



sericellus, Ceylon, Leveille. No type known. 



serpens, Rawak, Persoon. The types are at Paris. It is the same as anebus 

 of this pamphlet and a very much earlier name for it. Persoon gave a figure con- 

 sisting of numerous specimens growing imbricate along a stick. This is a very 

 unusual growth and misleading as to the general habits of the plant. Persoon 

 also called the plant Polyporus Marianus. Although a frequent plant in the East, 

 no one has ever referred specimens to Persoon's name and the plant has generally 

 been called by Berkeley's name Polyporus anebus. Polyporus serpens (type) 

 has no indication of the red stain that often comes on the pileus of this species, 

 then it becomes Polyporus bicolor. 



silaceus, Europe, Wettstein. No specimen known. The description suggests 

 Polyporus gilvus. 



simulans, "Cuba," Cooke. It is a thin specimen of Polyporus fumosus. It 

 was one of Berkeley's left overs that Cooke dug up, and supplied the locality. The 

 original looks to me like Thwaite's label and was probably from Ceylon. At least 

 there is nothing to connect it with "Cuba" except Cooke's endorsement. Murrill 

 includes it in his monographic work of "American species" and finding another 

 name simulans the same year changes it to Polyporus subsimulans. 



simulans, Europe, Karsten. Unknown. Description points to Polyporus 

 adustus. Saccardo changed simulans Karsten to Polyporus Karstenii because 

 Berkeley had a Polyporus simulans, and then Murrill comes along and changes 

 Polyporus simulans Berkeley to Polyporus subsimulans because Karsten has a 

 Polyporus simulans. It seems to be a good rule. It works both ways at least. 



Smallii, Florida, Murrill = Polyporus mollis. 



sordidissimus, Brazil, Spegazzini. No specimen seen. Description suggests 

 Polyporus supinus. 



sordidus, United States, Cooke = Polyporus Spraguei. 



Spermolepidis, New Caledonia, Patouillard = Polyporus Encalyptorum. The 

 crust is white and was originally described us as dark as are many specimens I 

 have seen but I think that is due to age. 



spiculifer, Australia, Cooke. = Polyporus pelliculosus. It is a thicker plant 

 and the tomentum is more strongh collected into nodules but surely the same 

 species. 



Splitgerberi, South America, Montagne = Polyporus rheicolor which is a much 

 better name for it. 



spongiosum, United States, Schweinitz. No specimen exists. Fries comments 

 on this strange plant and changed the name to Polyporus labyrinthicus. While in 

 absence of specimens nothing positive can be stated there is no doubt in my mind 

 that this was the plant now known as Polyporus obtusus. 



squamulosus, Africa, Bresadola, = Polyporus tephroleucus for me. I find 

 the spores allantoid 1x4, not subglobose, 7 x 8 as stated, and the squamules shown 

 on the figure Bull. Soc. Myc. France, Vol. 6, t. 5, are in faint evidence on the type. 



stabulorum, China, Patouillard. Not seen by me. Reads like Polyporus 

 Hookerii of this pamphlet. 



stereiforme, South America, Hennings as form of Polyporus conchoides. It 

 is a little thicker only than the usual plant which is all the difference. 



stillativus, Europe, Britzelmayr. His crude cartoon, his name and the spores 

 all point to it being Polyporus fuscus. 



strumosus, Africa, Fries. My notes on the type are to the effect that it has 

 dark hymenium and was too close to adustus. I have since seen at Bruxelles a 

 specimen marked "typical" which was quite different from my idea, having gilvous 

 context. Not having seen the type since I can not say. 



stuposus, South America, Montagne. Material known a single half specimen 

 less than one cm. is inadequate to base a species on. It is quite close if not same 

 as Polyporus concrescens. 



subchioneus, Philippines, Murrill. Subcaesius would have been a better 

 name for it, as the dried plant has similar color and spores to Polyporus caesius. 

 It is much thinner (3 mm.) than the European plant and of course we do not know 

 that it turns blue when fresh, but on the evidence of what is known about it I should 

 refer it to Polyporus caesius. It was distributed scantily and all I have seen are at 

 Berlin. 



386 



