cheap juggle for Polystictus hirsutus, is a misdetermination of Polystictus 

 hirsutus. Schweinitz usually so referred it, excepting one collection, which 

 had a new (dark) growth on margin and which he did not recognize. How 

 his mistake in one determination should invalidate the correct name under 

 which he usually knew it, only name jugglery can explain. 



376. Polyporus zonatus. The very poor specimen can not be definitely 

 referred. It is not probable that it is Polyporus zonatus, however. 



377. Polyporus versicolor. Specimen correct. 



378. Polyporus stereoides is a misdetermination for Polystictus per- 

 gamenus. 



379. Polyporus radiatus. Misdetermination for Polystictus versicolor, 

 to which it has not the most remote resemblance. 



380. Polyporus pallescens. Specimen too poor for opinion, but not 

 correct. 



381. Polyporus abietinus. Misdetermination of Polystictus pergame- 

 nus. This, however, is a very unusual, velutinate specimen. 



382. Polyporus i-irgincus. Specimen is same as Polystictus conchifer 

 with no "conch" developed. I am unable to see any resemblance whatever 

 between the specimen and the figure Schweinitz gave. 



383. Polyporus conchifer. Specimen correct. A well known, common 

 species, and endemic as far as known. 



384. Polyporus Syniphyton. No specimen preserved. The description in- 

 dicates that it was Polystictus biformis, a common, American species, not 

 otherwise accounted for in Schweinitz' records. 



385. Polyporus decipicns. No specimen preserved. 



386. Polyporus parvuhis. This is Polystictus abietinus. 



387. Polyporus scittellatus, correct as Fomes. 



Section "Biennes." 



388. Polyporus sanguineus. No specimen preserved 1 . 



389. Polyporus cinnabarinus. Specimen correct. 



390. Polyporus fraxineus. Misdetermination for Fomes conchatus. 



391. Polyporus acsculi (originally as Boletus aesculi flavae). The speci- 

 men (which is Daedalea ambigua) disagrees with Schweinitz' description 

 in every particular. It should be held as the "type" of the inaccurate work 

 that was done in arranging and labeling the specimens rather than a 

 "type" of Schweinitz. 



392. Polyporus resinosus. No specimen preserved. 



393. Polyporus Benzoinus. Misdetermination for Polyporus cuticularis. 



394. Polyporus odoratus. This is for me a trametes form of Lenzites 

 saepiaria, which Fries illustrates (Icon. t. 191) as Trametes protracta. It 

 is not Trametes odorata, a species of Europe that is not known to occur 

 in America. 



395. Polyporus nidulans. Correct, but a synonym for Polyporus ruti- 

 lans. 



396. Polyporus cuticularis. The specimen is Fomes conchatus, but 

 probably a transposition of specimens for 393 (q. v.). 



Polyporus brunneus. This is found in a capsule and not included in 

 Schweinitz' list nor mounted now in herbarium. It is Polyporus radiatus. 

 I can see no resemblance to "croceus Fr." or "cupreus Berk.," as referred 

 by Berkeley. 



