this error and change the custom is a question, for when an untruth has been started 

 it is hard to head it off. It seems hardly logical to continue calling a plant "Cordyceps 

 entomorrhiza Dickson" which the most casual observer should note has little resemblance 

 to Dickson's excellent figure. 



NOTE 95. Stipitate Polyporus volvatus. I have received drawings from Prof. S. 

 Kawamura, Tokyo, Japan, illustrating the stipe found on Polyporus volvatus in Japan. 

 Prof. Kawamura advises me that it is abundant, growing on dead trunks of Pinus densi- 

 flora, and the larger number of them have stipes, imbedded in the holes made by boring 

 insects. It is very rarely in Japan that sessile specimens are found. In our country just 

 the reverse is the case. Of Polyporus volvatus, every specimen in our museum is sessile, 

 not one having any indication of a stem. The stipitnte form was collected once in this 

 country, as has been noted in my publications, but it is extremely rare. 



NOTE 96. Tremella fusiformis. I have made a statement somewhere that Tremella 

 fusiformis does not occur in the United States. Recently I SAW in Ravenel's herbarium, 

 British Museum, a specimen that had been determined by Berkeley as "Tremella lutes- 

 cens." It appears to me to be a fusiformis. .As fusiformis is a frequent species in the 

 tropics, it would not be surprising if it were found in our Southern States. The mis- 

 named picture in Atkinson's work, however, has no resemblance to it, and its previous 

 record in American mycology is without value. 



Iri~a conversation with Prof. Beardslee, Asheville, X. C., I judged from the description 

 he gave me of a Tremella he found at Asheville, that he has collected Tremella fusiformis. 

 No specimen was saved, however, and the subject is therefore not sure. 



NOTE 97. Pialloids of Australia. In a letter from Edmund Jarvis, Brisbane, he 

 reports as being common two species, Mutinus pentagonus and Phallus multicolor. I was 

 under the impression that Mutinus pentagonus was a rare species in Australia, but of 

 course we do not know much about the actual occurrence of Australian species. The 

 form of Phallus multicolor which Mr. Jarvis notes has "a bright orange red pileus, 

 much convoluted, and a pale pink, slender veil, not much larger in diameter than the 

 stipe." Many more observations will have to be made and much more data secured 

 before one can form any idea o-f the value of the color variations shown by phalloids. 



NOTE 98. Cordyceps insignis. The curious fungi that proceed from the bodies of 

 dead insects, grubs and worms were called by Cooke, not inaptly, "plant worms." They 

 are usually club shaped, resembling in g'eneral form simple Clavarias. We have in the 

 United States but one common species, viz., Clavaria militaris, that is frequently sent 

 to me by my correspondents. The club is bright orange, and it is attached at the base 

 to larva of some Lepidoptera. 



The next most frequent species is Cordyceps insignis that passes in our tradition 

 as Cordyceps herculea. Ellis, Peek, Morgan, Seaver, Kellerman, Hard, and others have 

 so called it, assuming that it was Sphaeria herculea of Schweinitz's description. Had 

 either of these done a little more investigating with a little less assumption, they would 

 have found that "Sphaeria herculea" is not a Cordyceps at all. Cordyceps insignis always 

 grows on a large, white grub. It is rather infrequent around Cincinnati, but has been 

 found by most of the latter-day mycologists. Strange as it may seem, it was never 

 picked up by any of Berkeley's correspondents, who found in our Southern States several 

 much rarer species than this. Ravenel found a single specimen that he sent Cocke (after 

 Berkeley had retired from the game), who, not being hampered with our local traditions 

 in America, discovered it was a "new species" and named it as above. Patouillard, I 

 believe, also claims to have discovered it was a "new species," but if so, it was subse- 



?uent to Cooke's discovery, and hence must fall a victim of that sacred law of priority, 

 have, known for some years that our plant could not be Cordyceps herculea, having 

 ascertained that this species is not a Cordyceps, but I did not know what to call it 

 until my recent visit to Kew. I was waiting patiently for light from New York, knowing 

 that they were making learned investigations on Pyrenomycetes, but when the article 

 on Cordyceps appeared. I was disappointed to find there was nothing new, only the same 

 old compilations, and the same old mistakes. 



It was easier for me to decide that Sphaeria herculea in Sohweinitz herbarium 

 could not possibly be a Cordyceps, than to find out what it is. It is so evident at 

 the first glance to note that it has an entire different appearance from a Cordyceps, that 

 it seems strange that Ellis and Seaver, both of whom claim to be authorities on the 

 genus Cordyceps, and have written systematic :iccounts of it, should have been tripped 

 up, after having inspected it. 



But I do not know that the joke is on me as much as it is on them. I examined 

 it closely twice and could not decide what it was, and it was only by running 

 down a clue from an unexpected source that I recognized the specimen. It is Cauloglossum 

 transversarium, a Gnstromycete, and a plant that I know well and have published in 

 detail. The half specimen is glued down, and I considered it from an outside view 

 only. That it is a G-astromycete was not even suggested to me. Had I seen the 

 "insides" I think that I should have recognized it at first. 



16 



