The following names in American traditions are applied to plants which 

 grow in Europe and have established European names. In time the Euro- 

 pean names will prevail. 



guttulatus = alutaceus of Europe. 



pennsylvanicus^rpallidus. (not sure.) 



flavovireris = cristatus. 



Pilotae croceus. 



dryophilus=rheades, or corruscans, if the oak form is held distinct. 



obesus=Montagnei. 



fulvus = pomaceus. 



Peckii hispida. 



vialis=trabea, although the American name is more sure than the 

 European. 



Polystictus Lloydii is not a valid name. It is too close to Polystictus 

 Grayii, usually referred as a variety of pubescens, but for me a distinct 

 species. 



semipileatus is a synonym for semisupinus. 



zonalis is the unzoned form, called Polyporus rigidus by Leveille. 



nidulans is a synonym for rutilans, and as Persoon gave such a good 

 illustration of it there was no excuse whatever for Fries to rename it. Ac- 

 cording to "Law," however, Fries is the only man who can make blunders 

 and then have them legitimatized. 



lobatus is only a juggle for reniformis, and doubtfully correct even for 

 juggling purposes. 



conchoides is not same as dichrous, but a tropical form that does not 

 occur in Ohio. The hymenium is pale flesh color, never the dark reddish 

 purple of our northern plant. 



rubellus is a synonym for Merulius incarnatus, and no excuse for it, 

 as Schweinitz left good specimens in several museums. 



Three plants known in American traditions, viz., carneus, picipes, and 

 resinosus, are surely wrong, but there being no correct names for them, the 

 name? will probably prevail. They should be cited, however, as "American 

 traditions," not Nees, Fries, etc. I shall use carneus and picipes, but resi- 

 nosus is not only wrong and missapplied, but so absurd to employ it for a 

 plant that has no suggestion ever of being resinous, that I will use a Per- 

 soonian name, Polyporus fuscus, which may have been the same plant in 

 part, at any rate not a bad name for it. 



The white species have always been the difficult part of Polyporus 

 study, and it is impossible to reconcile ail conflicting evidence. As two 

 different schools, Romell and Bresadola, are positive that two different plants 

 are chioneus, I shall compromise the dispute by accepting neither, and use 

 Peck's name albellus, about which there is no question. 



Polyporus lacteus, in sense of Overholts, I have decided is Polyporus 

 trabeus, ore of Fries' "lost" species. It is another species about which no 

 two investigators will agree on the evidence. 



With these few exceptions, I believe Overholts' paper is strictly correct, 

 and, as the truth, will finally prevail. It is the only paper that has yet ap- 

 peared on American Polypores that is reasonably accurate, and the only 

 paper of much value. 



