NOTE 85. Hydnum ferrugineum and Hydnum scobiculatum, from Mrs. E. B. Black- 

 ford. The receipt of fresh specimens of these two species from Mrs. E. B. Blaekford, 

 Boston, and a study of the European figures that are cited clears 'ip to my mind a subject 

 concerning which I have never before had a clear idea. Pries was quite unfortunate in 

 the naming of the latter plant at least, for it is curious that Hydnum scobiculatum is 

 zonate, and only slightly scobiculate, and Hydnum ferrugineum is stiongly scobiculate. 

 This is borne out by the figures that Pries published and also those that he cites and also 

 accords with my observations en Hydnum fornigineum in the woods of Sweden. When 

 young or in moist weather Hydnum ferrugineum exudes drops of colored water, a char- 

 acteristic feature of the young plant, but when old or partially dried, there is no evidence 

 of any exudation. Mrs. Blackford's specimens when received by me showed no sign of 

 this. This has led Banker I believe to mistake old specimens of Hydnum ferrugineum for 

 Hydnum scobiculatum. 



Hydnum scobiculatum is much thinner and zonate and the "scobiculations" are more 

 in the nature of abortive pileoli than the true "scobicuiations" of Hydnum ferrugineum. 

 It was called by Banker, Hydnum concrescens and has generally in American mycology 

 been referred to Hydnum zonatum. It is a common species with us and I doubt if we 

 have tTie true Hydnum zonatum of Europe. If we have it is rare. They are very close, 

 but zonatiim as I know it in Europe and as originally illustrated is a smaller, thinner, 

 more infundibuliform species. 



Hydnum ferrugineum and Hydnum scobiculatum have exactly the same color, dark 

 fawn (No. 307-4, R. C.), and are the same internally. Both are mild to the taste and 

 no pronouncedly fragrant odor is noticeable from either. Possibly they run into each 

 other, but Mrs. Blackford's species seem very distinct. 



NOTE 86. Pseudocolus Archeri. Al.out fifty years ago Berkeley published a figure 

 in Flora of Tasmania (t. 184) as Lysurus pentactinus, find in his text he called it Lysurus 

 Archeri. The figure was probably prepared first, but in the binding the text is bound 

 first, hence by the sacred laws of priority the name Lysurus Archeri is "valid." If some 

 binder should go to work and bind up the plates before the text, what an awful muddle 

 it would make in the working of those unalterable laws! But as Berkeley called the 

 same plant two different names in the same publication, even the wisdom of an Otto Kuntze 

 must find it hard to make laws to settle such careless work. 



The specimen has disappeared and it is evident that the reconstructed figure is more 

 or less inaccurate, for surely no phalloid has the voiva split into petal-like lobes as shown. 

 Hence the identity of Lysurus Archeri Cor Lysunis pentactinus, as Otto Kuntze may will) 

 is as much a puzzle now as it was the day Berkeley published it. I reproduced Berkeley's 

 figure in the Synopsis of the Known Phalloids as Anthurus Archeri (Fig. 48), as it was 

 evident in any event the plant was not a Lysurus. I have just gotten a phalloid from 

 \V. G. Garner, Waikonini Orchard, Peel Forest, New Zealand, which when I soaked it out 

 I thought must be the same as Berkeley's figure. The columns are united at the top, 

 and at the bottom form a tube, hence the plant is a Pseudocolus in my view. There are 

 six arms, two are still united at the top, the other four are broken but were sans doubt 

 originally united. The color is red, and the gleba is borne on the inner side of each 

 column, which is fluted on the back with the "umbilical scar," hence the plant must 

 belong to the clathroid alliance. From Berkeley's figure that we reproduced, one would 

 be justified in referring this plant here for it seems to be the same, but Berkeley's scanty 

 text states "apicibus liberis, " which does not apply at all. 



We call the plant Pseudocolus Archeri. Should it develop in the next hundred years 

 or so that it is or is not Berkeley's species, the name is as good as any, although Mr. 

 Archer has little to do with it. 



NOTE 87. Hydnum geogenium. The receipt of a fresh specimen collected by George 

 E. Morris, in Maine, settles in my mind a subject that has long bothered me. It is the 

 same plant evidently as plants collected by Karsten and found at Upsala, and same surely 

 as that of Fries' Icones. 



The trouble has been that the only specimen from Fries I have seen (at Kew) ap- 

 peared to me to have grown dimidiate and Fries placed the species in Hym. Europaei 

 next to Hydnum septentrionales, a dimidiate species. The species is misplaced here. It 

 belongs next to Hydnum auranliacum, having the same texture and manner of growth. 



Hydnum geogenium is a peculiar species in its color. The fresh plant received from 

 Mr. Morris has the surface covered with n canary yellow tomentum, but the teeth and the 

 dried plant have a greenish cast. 



The spores are tubercular, globose, but appear of a paler color than others in this 

 related section. 



NOTE 88. Femes gilvns, sent by O. M. Oleson, from California, a subligneous 

 (Femes) form of Polyporus gilvus, like which it has the same context color and setae, 

 but is evidently perennial. In our Eastern States Polyporus gilvus does not take this 

 perennial form although it does in tropical countries. Such a form was named by Mon- 

 tagne, Polyporus inamaeus. 



NOTE 89. Lenzites erubescens, received from Rev. J. Rick Brazil. It is the only 

 stipitate Lenzites known. I think this plant is very badly named. Rev. Rick advises 

 me that it is "first pure yellow then reddish." The dried plant is dark fawn (No. 3, 

 307, R. C.) about the same as Lenzites saepiaria. There is nothing "erubescent" about 

 it. Leveille called it Lenzites Guilleminiana, but fortunately this uncouth name does not 

 have to be used. Only in recent years Hennings made the remarkable discovery that it 

 was a "new species" of Lentinus which he called Lentinus Schomburgkii. As this is the 

 only stipitate species of Lenzites known, Henning's reference to the genus Lentinus was 



14 



