different genus (Cantharellus) is a mystery to me. Merulius tremellosus 

 and Merulius incarnatus are so similar that they were confused as one 

 species by Berkeley, who only knew them from dried specimens. 



496. Merulius strigoso-zonatus. Correct as Phlebia (cfr. Letter No. 46, 

 where a detailed history of this much-named plant has been given). 



497. Merulius rufus and 



498. Merulius serpens. 



I think that in Sweden both of these plants, in the sense of Fries, are 

 one species, and Schweinitz' 497 seems to be correct. His 498 has no 

 affinity. 



499. Merulius crispatus. Misdetermination for Merulius Corium. 



500. Merulius paUois==^leru\ius Corium. 



501. Merulius fugax. No specimen preserved. 



502. Merulius lacrymans. Specimen correct. 



503. Merulius brassicaefolius. No specimen, but probably correctly in- 

 terpreted by Berkeley (cfr. 506), in which case it is same plant (really a 

 thin form of Merulius lacrymans) called pulverulentus by Fries. 



504. Merulius vastator and 



505. Merulius molluscus and 



507. Merulius Porinoides. I would not wish to pass on the specimens 

 that represent these three, excepting I am sure they are all wrong. 



506. Merulius himantioides. This is referred by Berkeley to No. 503 

 (q. v.) and is the same as Ravenel has distributed under the name Merulius 

 brassicaefolius. In Europe there is more than one opinion as to the identity 

 of Fries' Merulius himantioides (Cfr. Myc. Notes, p. 454), but according to 

 my conclusions the true species as I believe I have found it at Upsala, has 

 no resemblance to this. 



FISTULINA. 



This genus is now classed in Polyporei, though Schweinitz listed it in 

 Hydnei. 



508. Fistulina hepatica. Correct. 



509. Fistulina radicata. There exists no such species, the "type speci- 

 men'' being a distortion of something, and it is impossible from an exam- 

 ination to say what it would be if it were anything. 



"SPHAERIA." 



1167. Sphacria focnla. This is a unique, little species of Polyporus 

 (cfr. Myc. Notes, Pol. Series, p. 44). Schweinitz' specimens so labeled as 

 above are the undoubted plant. Recently the claim has been published 

 that Schweinitz first referred the plant to Peziza digitatis, afterwards 

 changed to Cyphella pendula, and they would even change the name of 

 Polyporus poculus on such vagaries. Schweinitz preserved the species in 

 his herbarium as Sphaeria pocula, so sent it to Europe, so illustrated it, 

 and there is not a shadow of evidence in his herbarium that Schweinitz 

 ever called it Cyphella pendula or anything else but Sphaeria pocula. When 

 men, under the influence of Kuntzeism, propose changes of plant names 

 on such "evidence" they should not go into print with the claim that such 

 work was done after an investigation. 



12 



