museums of Europe referred to Polyporus ovinus, but these are errors for Polyporus con- 

 fluens. Polyporus ovinus when it is fresh is white, but in old specimens it takes on a 

 reddish cast, and in Sweden we have sometimes difficulty in distinguishing Polyporus ovinus 

 from Polyporus confluens. There is no trouble with the dried specimens, however, Poly- 

 porus ovinus turns dark gray or black in drying and confluens turns red, and the older it 

 gets, the redder it becomes. 



NOTE 197. Lenzites rhabarbarina, from Mrs. M. A. Noble, Inverness, Fla. (as 

 Daedalea), changed to Daedalea Berkeley! by Saccardo, but unnecessarily, as it is a better 

 Lenzites. In reality it is only a Southern, bright-colored form of Lenzites saepiaria, so com- 

 mon in Northern pine regions. It loses its bright color with old age, and the "type" could 

 not be told to-day from old Lenzites saepiaria if one did not know its history. It grows 

 usually, if not exclusively, on pine wood. 



NOTE 198. The Genus Hypholoma. This is another one of Professor Harper's excellent 

 publications devoted to the Genus Hypholoma. The species are illustrated by a collection of 

 photographs, which will prove most helpful to those persons, working on the subject. Since 

 Professor Peck has retired from the work there is a pressing need for some one to take up 

 the work where he left it off. The three men whom I think are most actively engaged in it 

 are Professor Edward T. Harper, Madison, Wis. ; H. C. Beardslee, Asheville, N. C. ; Simon 

 Davis, Brookline, Mass. I often have inquiries for the address of some one to identify 

 agarics. I do not know that either of these gentlemen would wish to engage in that work, 

 but they are the only ones known to me who are giving the subject much attention, except- 

 ing Mr. Murrill, of New York. Mr. Murrill, however, has destroyed the usefulness of his 

 work by formulating a private vocabulary that has no value to the general mycologist. 



I am very glad to see Professor Harper sending out his work in printed form, and I 

 hope our friends Beardslee and Davis will follow his good example. No matter how great 

 the amount of work a man puts on a subject and how much he studies about it, unless he 

 goes into print and makes his knowledge available to others, his efforts will amount to very 

 little for the general good. 



NOTE 199. "Dear Mr. Lloyd: It is a pleasure to receive your recent letters (Nos. 48- 

 62), and I thank you for them. By this time I suppose it is indisputable that you have seen 

 more kinds and specimens of Polyporus than any other one man. I suppose also that this 

 statement will be forever true. Consequently, we shall have to rely upon you to make no 

 mistakes. 



"I am always greatly entertained by your remarks about 'les petites affiches.' You 

 certainly are unrelenting. But nevertheless I can't help thinking that the noting of authori- 

 ties is useful, perhaps indispensable. They contribute to exactness of reference and of 

 understanding. If the printing of them does tickle the pride of some who have little to be 

 proud of, I think we may ignore their childish satisfaction. Children are proud to see their 

 names on their underclothes. But the usefulness of such means of preventing mistakes 

 outweighs the disadvantage of such incidental encouragement of human frailty. Can't you 

 think so? Yours sincerely, 



"W." 



I doubt if I can ever be convinced that a personal name has any connection with the 

 name of a plant, or that a plant should be designated by other than the binomial represent- 

 ing the genus and its species. I feel positive that no other presumably scientific subject 

 has been so carelessly, superficially, and inaccurately worked as has the subject of mycology, 

 and I attribute much of this unfortunate condition to the custom of adding personal names 

 to the names of plants. There might be some excuse for the prevailing custom if we had 

 'not a good model to follow. But as long as the best book ever written on mycology, 

 namely, Fries' Hymenomycetes of Europe, did not consider it necessary to attach personal 

 names to plant names, but restricted these entirely to bibliographical citations, I believe 

 we should follow this model. I do not object to bibliographical citations. On the contrary, 

 I think that in their proper place they are very useful ; but they should be made in such 

 a way as not to offend good taste. 



While I may be unduly prejudiced in attributing to this custom the prevailing evils of 

 mycology, I believe all will admit that the process constitutes its largest factor. Workers 

 get a little smattering of the subject, and then proceed, often without knowing even the 

 genera, to propose as "new species" everything they do not recognize. Others propose 

 as "new genera" sections that no one else considers as other than sections of old genera, 

 and then proceed to add their own names to countless species, without adding one iota 

 (excepting further confusion), to the classification of the subject. One American writer 

 recently had the nerve to add his name after 81 per cent of the plants he considered, 

 while it is my belief, and I have given the subject close study, that he has not proposed 

 a single new idea in connection with the classification, and I further believe that a number 

 of the old principles he did not understand. 



A few mycologists, none of them American, I am happy to say, have the most objec- 

 tionable system of all. As a matter of sentiment, there might be some excuse for writing 

 personal names after plant names, if the one who named the plant is dead, or even for 

 tickling the vanity of a living writer, but it appears to us that the system of substituting 

 one's own name for the names of those who originally named the species, as practiced by 

 a few foreign myeologists, is thoroughly objectionable, being dishonest in principle. 



The fact that I have corrected several mistakes of my own making is, I think, evidence 

 that I cannot be relied upon not to make mistakes. The only man who never makes mistakes 

 is the man who does not do anything. To err is human, and I know but one mycological 

 worker who seems to believe himself infallible. Personally I do not so consider him, but 

 believe that he, like the rest of us, makes mistakes. However, I feel that for the good 

 work he has accomplished he is entitled to so much credit that I am not disposed to quibble 

 over minor failings. No one is perfect, every one has his faults, every one makes mistakes. 

 But the greatest mistake a man can make is not to recognize that he himself is capable of 

 an error. 



16 



