343. Polyporus labyrinthicus. There is no specimen so labeled now, but 

 I have little doubt that it was the same as Polyporus unicolor or as named 

 by Berkeley, Polyporus obtusus. The description applies to this plant 

 exactly and the description of unicolor with its "stipite centrali umboni- 

 formi" does not apply to the specimen so named in the herbarium now. 

 Polyporus labyrinthicus is one of the mysteries of Schweinitz' records. 

 Berkeley and Fries both saw specimens and both commented on what a 

 marked species it was. No trace of a specimen is preserved, however, at 

 Kew or Upsala. The remarks of both (except some minor discrepancies) 

 would indicate that the plant now known as Polyporus obtusus is what 

 Schweinitz had. Ellis first distributed Polyporus obtusus under this name, 

 but sent a correction later. 



344. Polyporus spumeus. No specimen preserved, and as the species 

 is white, and Schweinitz records it subspadiceus, there is probably an 

 error of determination. Polyporus spumeus is a frequent American species 

 not current in our literature because not recognized. Murrill mistakes 

 Polyporus spumeus as being Polyporus galactinus. 



345. Polyporus betulinus. Specimen correct. 



346. Polyporus chioneus. This is Polyporus albellus, I believe, al- 

 though the specimen has a decidedly yellow tinge that I do not know in 

 connection with albellus. The surface and spores are same as albellus. 

 It is chioneus of several (Murrill, Karsten), but of Fries doubtful. It is 

 lacteus of Bresadola, also of Fries doubtful. 



347. Polyporus destructor. I do not know destructor in Europe and 

 I can not say as to this old specimen. It seems to have been a white plant 

 and the pores remind me of those of spumeus. I find large 10-12 sub- 

 globose spores, but may be accidental. Schweinitz labeled it with a ? 

 mark. 



348. Polyporus lacteus. Species too poor for comment. 



349. Polyporus stypticus. No specimen preserved. It is unfortunate 

 that there is no specimen in Schweinitz' collection, for it is a species not 

 settled in Europe to-day. What the French call Polyporus stipticus does 

 not agree with the original description, and is Polyporus albidus for 

 Bresadola. I have a suspicion that Polyporus stipticus, in its original sense, 

 is more common with us than in Europe, and I suspect that it is the 

 foundation of Polyporus cerifluus and Polyporus semisupinus, as found in 

 Murrill's work. 



350. Polyporus mollis. Not mollis. It may be galactinus, as some 

 one has endorsed, but that is quite doubtful. 



351. Polyporus caesius. Appears correct to me. 



352. Polyporus fragilis. No specimen preserved. 



353. Polyporus tephroleucus. No specimen preserved. 



354. Polyporus alutaceus. The specimen mounted is Fomes connatus. 

 In the original wrapper I find a piece of a specimen which is probably 

 correct Polyporus alutaceus, but is an entirely different plant from the 

 one that is mounted to represent this species. Polyporus alutaceus appears 

 usually as Polyporus guttulatus in American works. 



355. Polyporus fimbriporus. The specimen is quite small, but is I be- 

 lieve Polyporus fragilis as I found it in Sweden. It is a white plant that 

 turns red in drying, (cfr. Letter 43 under Weir). 



6 



