Section Coriacei 



Now called Section Pelloporus. 



327. Polyporus perennis. Misdetermination for Polystictus focicola. 



328. Polyporus rufescens. Misdetermination for same (focicola) as 

 above. It was misreferred by Berkeley to Schweinitz' Polystictus con- 

 natus, and for many years Polystictus focicola passed in American Mycology 

 as being Polystictus connatus (cfr. Pol. Issue, page 10). 



329. Polyporus Schweinitzii. Specimen correct. 



330. Polyporus connatus. The "type" specimens are Polystictus per- 

 ennis (cfr. 327 and 328 above). 



331. Polyporus radicatus. No specimen preserved, but is a well-known 

 endemic species, which has no analogue in Europe. It does not belong 

 in this section, however. 



Section Pleuropus. 



332. Polyporus varius. No specimen preserved, but it surely is the 

 plant now called Polyporus picipes, which is the American form of Polyporus 

 varius of Europe. 



333. Polyporus badius. No specimen preserved; but from Schweinitz' 

 record and reference it is now called Polyporus elegans. 



334. Polyporus lucidus. The species in Schweinitz' herbarium is Poly- 

 porus Curtisii, which might be considered as an unvarnished, yellow form 

 of Polyporus lucidus. I think it quite distinct from lucidus. 



335. Polyporus umbel! atus. The specimen is Polyporus frondosus. 



336. Polyporus frondosus. No specimen preserved. As Schweinitz 

 determined Polyporus frondosus as being Polyporus umbellatus, and as from 

 his record it is probable that his Polyporus giganteus was Polyporus 

 Berkeleyi, it is probable that his record of Polyporus frondosus was based 

 on Polyporus giganteus, and that he never met the rare Polyporus um- 

 bellatus. 



337. Polyporus giganteus. No specimen preserved; but from Schwei- 

 nitz' remarks it is probable that the plant he determined as being Poly- 

 porus giganteus was what is known now as Polyporus Berkeleyi. 



338. Polyporus cristatus. This always passed in American mycology 

 as Polyporus flavovirens, and it is only in recent years that its identity 

 with the European species has been settled (cfr. Note 4, Letter 29). 

 Schweinitz had it right in his writings, and he is the only American my- 

 cologist that has had it right. The specimen is a merest fragment, and 

 I -would not pass on it, but think it also is correct, though very much 

 changed in color. 



339. Polyporus sulphureus. Specimen correct. 



340. Polyporus imbricatus (as intricatus in error). No specimen pre- 

 served. In Europe it is now held to be a condition of Polyporus sulphureus, 

 and so it was no doubt in the sense of Schweinitz. 



341. Polyporus gravcolens. Specimen correct. As Fomes now. 



Section Apus. 



342. Polyporus hispidus. Specimen correct. Specimen appears harder 

 than the species should be and has lost its surface characters. Spores same, 

 however, and specimen no doubt correct. 



5 



