The makers of exsiccatae have paid but little attention to "generic" 

 jugglers. Bartholomew has used some of Murrill's juggles, and Raben- 

 horst a few of Karsten's juggles. We do not hold generic juggling to be 

 of enough value to warrant citation even as synonyms. Specific juggling 

 does the most harm. Thus there is hardly a museum where Fomes pinicola 

 is not found in three covers, all exactly the same plant, but passing under 

 three different names. Such work is only confusion. 



In most museums the specimens are arranged in covers as labeled, for 

 those who lay them in are not supposed to be informed on their classifica- 

 tion and have nothing to go by excepting the label. The result is that many 

 species are found in several different covers, according as the names are 

 synonyms or juggles, and also inany specimens which are misdetermined are 

 placed in covers where they do not belong. The British -Museum has re- 

 cently rearranged the specimens according to my notes, and it is the only 

 museum that I recall where the specimens are arranged and labeled with 

 enough accuracy so that they are of any value in determination of speci- 

 mens. 



Authentic Friesian specimens are rare in the museums. Even at Up- 

 sala there is a very imperfect set. More of. them are found at Kew than 

 in any other museum, for Fries sent to Berkeley more specimens than to any 

 other correspondent. A number of these Berkeley divided, and deposited 

 part in the British Museum. They are marked "Fries misit" in this list. 



Blytt sold his herbarium to the British Museum, and a large part of his 

 specimens are endorsed in Blytt's writing "Fries in litt.," as recorded in 

 this list. Most of them are undoubtedly correct, but some are hard to 

 reconcile with Fries' writings. Whether this is due to some error on the 

 part of Blytt, or of Fries, or whether the usual accepted interpretation of 

 Fries' writing is a mistake, I am unable to say. I record, however, in 

 detail where these specimens do not coincide with my understanding of 

 Fries' writings. The abbreviations that we use for the various exsiccatae 

 are not explained in full, but will be recognized by those familiar with the 

 names of the usual exsiccatae. Where the same author has issued exsic- 

 catae under more than one title, or series, as "Saccardo Ital." and "Sac- 

 cardo Ven.," we do not always specify the series, simply cite "Sacc." and 

 the number. 



In this list the species are entered under the correct generic name 

 (Polyporus, Fomes, Polystictus, etc.) to my views. In the exsiccatae cited 

 they are not always so listed generically, but I have not always noted these 

 unimportant discrepancies. Thus all Fomes, Polystictus, and Poria were 

 at one time called Polyporus, and it is immaterial and should cause no con- 

 fusion if a given exsiccatae was labeled Fomes connatus or Polyporus con- 

 natus. The method followed in Smith's British Basidiomycetes (and some 

 other English books) of writing Karsten's and Cooke's names after all (21) 

 (alleged) species of Fomes (not to mention hundreds of other cases), be- 

 cause the men who named them called them Polyporus (or in very old times 

 Boletus) is in my opinion a piece of misrepresentation of which the author 

 possibly did not realize the extent. 



Ravenel's fascicle numbers are not noted on the British Museum dis- 

 tributed sets, and I have not looked them up, but cite only the specimen 

 numbers, which by Ravenel's cumbersome method was repeated in each 



2 



