NOTE 132. Polyporus spumeus, received from Thos. Langton, Toronto, Canada. 

 While this is not a rare plant in America, it has not been recognized in the current tra- 

 ditions, and appears in Murrill's work as Polyporus galactinus, a misreference, cfr. Note 147. 

 I learned Polyporus spumeus at Upsala, and it is usually correct in the current European 

 literature. When fresh it is pure white, but discolors in drying. Dried specimens are 

 easily confused with Polyporus saiignus, from which it differs in a spore character. Tne 

 American specimens (as this from Mr. Langrton) are usually thinner than my European 

 material. 



NOTE 133. Femes geotropus, frcm Mr. W. H. Long, collected in the Southern 

 States. A destructive rot on the cypress of the South, causing the hollow trees. There 

 is a question as to the name to employ. First, a question whether it is or is not Fomes 

 lignosus, so common in tne tropics, and the destructive disease- of the rubber tree (cir. 

 Myc. Notes, page 519), with which it seems to agree in everything except. ng the sur- 

 face of the pileus. tecond, whether it is not Femes ulmarius of England, which is very 

 close to it, but has bright pores. Fomes ulmarius, Fomes hgnosus, and this species 

 are all three very closely related plants, and, I believe, in the end will be held to be 

 essentially the same. 



NOTE 134. Polyporus fissilis, received from Mr. W. H. Long. This is the first si>eci- 

 men I have received. I think Murrill has this r:'ght as to species, although the type at 

 Kew is a single, tnin slice about which I could not tell mucn, never r.avmg seen a 

 specimen. I lound the spores of the type abundant; globose, 6-7 mic. hyaline, with 

 thick walls, and as Murrill states that they are ovo.d, 3 x 5, I questioned his determ.na- 

 tion, but it proves only to be one of his inaccurate spore records. Tne spores of Long's 

 specimen are same as the type. Nor does it belong to the section Spongipellis, in the 

 sense of the man who proposed this juggle. 



But this same plant grows in Europe, at least a p'.ant that I can not distinguish 

 on comparison. The spores of the European plant are smaller, measur.ng about 4 m.c., 

 but a species can not be maintained on that difference. The European nomenclature is 

 more confusing than the American. Bresadola in Fungi Km.it. referred it to Poly- 

 porus rub'ginosus "Fr.," and afterwards he determined specimens for both Romell and 

 Bourdot as Polyporus albus "Fr." I can see little resemblance to the figure Fries cites, 

 but the description, "poris ex albo rufescentibus," would seem to indicate it. Recently 

 Romell has named the European plant Polyporus albo-sordescens, which is a good 

 name for it. There are discrepancies given in the spore records of the various authors. 

 Romell ovate, 3 x 4-5 ; Bresadola obovate, 3 J /2-4 x 5-6. I make them globose when perfect, 

 although many are as Rcmell states. 



Notwithstanding the spore discrepancies, I do not doubt the practical identity of the 

 American and European piants. It is a very peculiar species, white when fresh : it turns 

 reddish in drying, particularly the pores, which turn darker than the flesh, and coalesce into 

 a rigid mass. This is due no doubt to some chemical constituent that oxidizes. I think 

 it is of a resinous nature. 



We have another similar species in our Western States, Po!yporus amarus, as re- 

 cently named by Hedgeccck. It grows on the incense cedar in California. This differs 

 frcm Polyporus fissilis in spores (5 x 8), and the nature of the flesh, wnich is brittle, 

 not fibrillose. 



The name fissilis means capable of being split in the direction of the grain, end is 

 not a bad name for ur American plant. Polyporus fissilis with us is of a Southern 

 range. Mr. Lcng's specimen is frcm Mississippi, and at New York are four collections 

 all frcm the South. 



NOTE 135. Fomes (exanus, from Mr. W. H. Long. Cotype specimen. Growing on 

 juniper, living trees. This specimen is quite close to Femes igniarius, as it grows on 

 poplar. I question if it would be practical to distinguish the sporaphores alone. It haa 

 the same yellowish mycelium, black, rimose surface, and the context is very nearly the 

 same color. It has no setae. The spores are 7-8 mic. (not 3-4 as stated), globose, smooth, 

 and almost hyaline. I think they are very pale-colored, at least their abundance would 

 so indicate. The spores of Fomes igniarius are slightly smaller and hyaline. 



NOTE 136. Hydnum mirabile, sent in by George E. Morris, Waltham, Mass., as to 

 Peck's determination, and no one has ever proven he was wrong. (Cfr. Fries, Icones, t. 3, 

 fig. 2.) Nothing is known of Fries' plant in Northern Europe excepting this figure. Our 

 American p'ant has a sharp, peppery taste when fresh, and is sutipcsed to b3 the sama as is 

 found in France and called Hydnum acre by Quclet. Then Atkinson sent our American 

 plant to Bresadola, who discovered that it was a "new species," and Atkinson published 

 it as Kydnum cristatus. When the truth is learned about that rare Northern plant 

 of Europe, I have no doubt that it will be found that Peck was right, and that the plant 

 is Hydnum mirabile. 



Since the above was written, I have received specimens of Hydnum mirabile from 

 Erik Haglund, who has been fortunate enough to find recently this long-lost species of 

 Sweden. Also an authentic specimen of Hydnum acre from Bresadola. As I have several 

 collections of our American plant, when I get home and can compare this material, 

 I ought to reach some definite conclusions on the subject that has long puzzled me as 

 to these three species. 



NOTE 137. Daedalea ochraceus, received from Geo. E. Morris, Waltham, Mass. I 

 would designate the light-colored forms of Daedalea unicolor that frequently reach me, 

 which correspond to Polystictus ochraceus as forms of Polystictus hirsutus. 



12 



