the thick form of the tropics is Hirneola polytricha. Usually the hymenium has a purplish 

 cast when dried, but specimens often reach me where the hymenium is brown. I do not 

 consider this as of any specific value, as specimens lose the purplish cast when they are 

 moistened. As to spore measurements, there is a little variation in size, but they are 

 essentially the same. It is a very common species in every country of the world, and the 

 slight variations found in different locations are remarkable when the distribution of the 

 species is taken into account. 



As to -the genus, we believe the genus Hirneola should be maintained and not merged 

 into Auricularia, as is the tendency with modern writers. Hirneola has its hymenium su- 

 perior and Auricularia has its hymenium inferior, and the position of the hymenium has 

 always been held to be of generic importance in the Friesian system. Since Brefeld's 

 classical work was published on the basidia of the tremellaceous plants, it seems that 

 modern classifiers can see no characters in this class of plants except the basidia. 



NOTE 40. Lentinus dactyliophora. I receive this frequently from the East and 

 Africa, and it is evidently the most common species of Lentinus in these countries. It is 

 light yellow color, smooth, has narrow yellow gills, and the remnant of a veil is quite 

 evident on most specimens. It is without question Leveille's species which he well illus- 

 trated, but it probably has other names, as most of Leveille's "new species" have. I have 

 never worked over the foreign Lentinus in the museums, and while there have been about a 

 hundred "new species" discovered, most of them will probably prove to be synonyms. 



NOTE 41. "Fomes torulosus. This species belongs teste Lloyd, Myc. Notes, Poly- 

 poroid Issue, No. 3, p. 48, to Fomes fusco-purpureus Bond. Spores globose, hyaline, 4 mic. 

 in diameter. In Fomes rubriporis Quelet, the author himself indicated the spores as 

 ovoid, 5 mic. long, pale fulvous. Is it a different species?" Sacc. Sylloge Fungorum, 

 Vol. 21, p. 294. 



No, it is not a different species. The spore discrepancies are due simply to inaccurate 

 work on the part of Mr. Quelet. Boudier was the discoverer of this species, and he sent 

 it to Quelet under the manuscript name Fomes fusco-purpureus. Before he had a chance 

 to publish it, however, Quelet came out and published it as Fomes rubriporis. This pro- 

 ceeding was a little indelicate, not to say a word more severe, but as Quelet originally 

 received the specimen from Boudier, and as Quelet himself has acknowledged fusco-pur- 

 pureus is a synonym for rubriporis 'and claims the validity of rubriporis on account of 

 priority (and he might have added, a little rascality), we think it is not worth while at 

 this late da'e to question the synonymity of the two species on the strength of spore dis- 

 crepant}-. 



NOTE 42. Thelephora pedicellata. We have in this country a plant known under this 

 name, which of course is no Thelephora in the modern sense of the genus, and which differs 

 from most fungi in not being saprophytic on its host, neither is it parasitic, although it 

 grows on the' living stems. The genus is called in Europe now Septobasidium, based on 



of Ceylon, he told me that the genus was quite common with him and probably the same 

 species we have in the United States. According to his investigation the young plant 

 starts from a scale insect. Prof. Fetch has written a paper on the subject some time re- 

 cently, but I have not seen it. The subject has been brought up by some specimens having 

 been recently received from Prof. John Dearness", London. Ont., concerning which Prof. 

 Dearness writes me: "This occurs with me on Cornus. It is associated with aspidium. 

 or an allied scale insect." 



NOTE 43. N'abusez pas du microscope. The introduction of the microscope into 

 modern classification of fungi is very popular because it changes fundamentally the names 

 of the old system. Except the advantage in making new names, we think it is of doubtful 

 utility and that its use would in general be better in the subdivision of the old genera. 

 The Friesian system of classification, based on macroscopic characters that are obvious to 

 the eye, is certainly the simplest and generally the most practical and best way of classi- 

 fying fungi. Under the system one can tell a Stereum as soon as he sees it. Under the 

 modern method, one has to take it home and look at it under the microscope, to see if it 

 is a "Stereum," "Hymenochaete, " or "Lloydiella.' ' The microscopic characters may 

 be a convenient method of subdividing the genus Stereum, but it appears to me to be 

 straining a point to base genera on the characters of the hairs of the hymenium whether 

 (you call these hairs setae, metuloids. or cystidia, and is in principle the same and just 

 about as logical as it would be to classify mammals by the nature of their fur coats. 



We would not have it inferred, however, that we decry the use of the microscope 

 when it reveals fundamental difference, as the nature of the basidia or essential organs. 

 While we believe this is carried to excess at the present day, in principle it is right. But 

 to base a genus on every shape and kind of hair that the microscope reveals on the 

 hymenium is only an abuse of microscopic characters. 



NOTE 44. "Xylaria" flabelliformis. I am quite familiar in our woods around Cin- 

 cinnati with a conidial plant that passes in our literature as "Xylaria" flabelliformis. I 

 get the same plant from Africa. It was named and figured by Schweinitz, who claimed 

 that it was "rarely fertile." Ellis referred it as a conidial form of Xylaria corniformis. 

 but I think without any evidence, and I do not believe it has anything whatever to do 

 with any Xylaria. I have often seen it, and watched it to see if it develops into a 

 "Xylaria," which is quite improbable. I never have found any perithecia. Peck in his 

 early day described it as a "new species" Thelephora rosella. The last time I was at 

 Albany I had a good laugh with him over it, for he lias long since learned that it is no 

 species of "Thelephora" either new or old. All we can say at the present time is that it 

 is a mystery and should be classed with Isaria until its perfect form (if it has one) is 

 found out. 



