YASUDA, PROF. A., Japan (i): 



Several of these collections are from an historical locality, "Bonin 

 Island," from which an early collection was made by the U. S. Explor. 

 Expedition and named in Europe. 



Hydnum ochraceum. Polyporus pubescens. Polyporus squamosus. 

 Polystictus biformis, exactly the same as we have in the United States. 

 Polystictus pterygodes. Trametes Dickinsii. Stereum (Section Hymeno- 

 chaete). Lenzites (or Panus). (Sp.). Hyphomycetes. Polyporus (Gano- 

 dermus) lucidus. Polyporus ostreif ormis ? The type from Philippines 

 seems to be the same, according to my notes and photograph. 



Hexagona bivalvis. This was named from the island of Rawak. It 

 is same as to pores and surface, as Hexagona tenuis of the American 

 tropics, and I have thought they were the same thing. This specimen, 

 however, I can see is not so rigid (as tenuis), more of the Polystictus 

 order, but if the Eastern species is held to be a different plant from our 

 tropical American plant, it will be very difficult to distinguish them ex- 

 cept by locality. Apiosporum pinophilum? Tremellodon gelatinosum. 

 Polyporus Mikadoi (as named in this letter, cfr. Umemura). Polystictus 

 vernicipes. Specimens from the type locality, "Bonin Island." Polyporus 

 f oedatus ? 



Polystictus unknown to me. Probably unnamed. It is a pure white 

 and glabrous species. Has rather large, rosy pores. It is reduced at the 

 base and might be classed in Section 26 of my recent Stipitate Polyporoids. 

 Polyporus unknown to me. Stereum. Probably "versicolor." Old. 



29. We have received from Mr. E. B. Sterling, Trenton, N. J., very large 

 specimens of Polyporus Berkeley!. These specimens weigh respectively 19 and 24 Ibs. 

 each. Polyporus Berkeleyi is the largest species of Polyporus we have in the United 

 States, and attains a greater size than the similar plant, Polyporus giganteus, notwith- 

 standing the name of the latter. 



Owing to its large size it is strange to me that it is not referred by Mr. Murrill to 

 Polyporus colossus. It has as much resemblance to Polyporus colossus as the plant that 

 he has so referred, as neither of them have any resemblance to it whatever, except in being 

 "large." This process of guessing at the identity of a plant from the name ordinarily 

 has not much to commend it, but after visiting the museum where the type is preserved, 

 then to come home and make such a "break" only illustrates the "scientific" value of 

 the superficial work that is done on these cursory visits. 



Mr. Sterling also sends me two very fine photographs of the species as it grows, but 

 they are about the same as the photographs that we have previously published (Fig. 362) 

 of this species in Myc. Notes Pol., Issue p. 37. 



NOTE 30. Polyporus Chaperi (Amaurodermus). A specimen received from G. Peckolt 

 is the second specimen known. This is a finer specimen than the type at Paris. The 

 surface is rugulose zoned, but glabrous. Color reddish brown. Stipe mat with sterile 

 branches as in the type. This species has a structure that I did not note when I examined 

 the type. The fibrous tissue of the tubes consists of long deeply-colored pointed hyphae, 

 the ends often projecting into the tubes and appearing like colored setae of other species. 

 I have noted a similar structure in Femes pachyphloeus, but if this is a character of the 

 type specimen of Polyporus Chaperi (and it must be if this is correctly named), I did not 

 notice it. Spores are globose, smooth, pale colored, 10-12 mic. 



NOTE 32. Irpex coriaceus is a plant of the American tropics said to have several 

 synonyms. The teeth have a peculiar, greenish olive color by which it is known at once. 

 Rev. Rick distributes it as Poria portoricensis, which was named, I think, from the de- 

 scription, as I have never found any type at Upsala, though there may be a cotype at 

 Berlin. Hydnum trachyodon, as guessed in Saccardo, is the same thing (type at Paris). 



NOTE 33. Tomes fasciatus. In a letter from Mr. Romell, March 15, 1912, he 

 writes me that "neither Prof. Lindman, the present Intendant of the botanical collections 

 at the Riksmuseum in Stockholm, nor Dr. Malme, nor Prof. Juel, who have also been 

 working there, know anything of the fungi collected and described by Swartz. A search 

 was made for them some years ago, but without result. Some of the collections are. 

 however, scarcely accessible now from want of space, so that a thorough search can hardly 

 be made at present, but must be deferred until the new, more spacious building is ready. 



