356. Polyporus pubescens. No specimen preserved. 



357. Polyporus fumosus. Misdetermination for Fomes annosus. 



358. Polyporus undulatus. No specimen preserved. 



359. Polypous isabellinus. No specimen preserved. 



360. Polyporus nigro purpurasccns. Specimen quite poor, but it appears 

 to me to be a Polyporus dichrous as Fries and Berkeley both declare it 

 to be. It is thinner than the next, however, which I do not question is 

 P. dichrous. 



361. Polyporus amorphus. The specimen and record both are based 

 on Polyporus dichrous. Polyporus amorphus, common in Europe, occurs 

 with us very rarely east of the Mississippi. The specimen is typical of 

 the common Polyporus dichrous. 



362. Polyporus adustus. No specimen preserved. 



363. Polyporus crispus. No specimen preserved. 



364. Polyporus ulmarius. Misdetermination. It appears to be a thick 

 specimen of Polyporus gilvus, at any rate has no relation to ulmarius. 



365. Polyporus suaveolens. Specimens much eaten, but no doubt cor- 

 rect as Trametes. 



366. Polyporus populinus. This, in the sense of Fries, is I consider 

 unknown although the name is applied by Bresadola (and those who copy 

 him) to Fomes connatus. The plant of Schweinitz, however, is not Fomes 

 connatus, but a species of Trametes which I have found, as Schweinitz did, 

 on apple wood and which Berkeley named Trametes malicola. It is not 

 known to occur in Europe, but is a characteristic species of America which 

 was not included in Murrill's work. Murrill refers the name as a doubtful 

 synonym to galactinus, which was a very bad guess. 



367. Polyporus unicolor. The specimens preserved are now called Poly- 

 porus obtusus. This has been known for years, but as the specimens do 

 not accord with Schweinitz' description they were supposed to be an error, 

 (cfr. No. 343.) They are correct, however, as parts still remain in the 

 original wrapper. 



368. Polyporus cervinus. No specimen preserved. Something that 

 Schweinitz found only once, and impossible to suggest its identity from 

 description alone. There is a little specimen at Upsala which Bresadola 

 takes in the sense of Polystictus biformis, but which is very doubtful to 

 me. (cfr. No. 384 and also Myc. Notes, page 422.) This common plant 

 is probably not the one that Schweinitz found "only once." 



369. Polyporus serialis. No specimen preserved. 



370. Polyporus pilotac. We have been able to prove only very recently 

 that this is Polyporus croceus of Europe. (Cfr. Note 4, Letter 29.) Berke- 

 ley called it Polyporus hypococcineus, as he acknowledges. 



371. Polyporus pallido-cervinus. The little frustule appears to be Poly- 

 porus rutilans. 



Section Coriacei (which is called Polystictus now). 



372. Polyporus hirsutus. Specimen correct. 



373. Polyporus hirsiitulits. Specimen correct, but I hold it only as a 

 form of versicolor. 



374. Polyporus velutinus. The specimen is P. hirsutus. 



375. Polyporus nigromarginains. This name, which has been used as a 



7 



