NOTE 264. Hydnum acre, from Rev. H. Bourdot, Allier, France. Most assuredly this 

 is not the same plant as our "acrid" species (Hydnum mirabile) as has been stated. 



NOTE 265. Thelephoras. I am inclined to think there are four or five species in 

 Europe usually referred to Thelephora spiculosa. They all have same spores, as most 

 Thelephoras have, but seem to me different in their habits. I have received six collections 

 from Rev. Bourdot, Allier, France, and labeled them in my collection as follows: 



Thelephora biennis (?) (See Note 266). 



Thelephora spiculosa. Growing on pine needles as recorded by Fries. 



Thelephora crustosa. Resupinate, technically a Tomentella now. 



Thelephora mollissima. Always in frondose woods, sending up ascending pileoli. 



Thelephora fimbriata of America mycology, = Thelephora cristata var. fusco-badium 

 Desm. No. 362. Thelephora cristata, Schroeter, (797) not Fries or Persoon. An incrusting 

 species with narrow, free border. 



NOTE 266. "Thelephora fastidiosa," from Rev. H. Bourdot, Allier, France. I have 

 received from Rev. H. Bourdot, a specimen, the first of this kind I have seen. It was 

 labeled "Thelephora fastidiosa, Det. Quelet, 1876" but surely is not of Quelet's Flora 1888, 

 nor Persoon nor Fries, which is not a Thelephora now. I judge it is biennis of Quelet's 

 published works. As it was determined as fastidiosa it must have been foetid when fresh, 

 but has no resemblance to Thelephora palmata or Thelephora diffusa, the only foetid 

 species of Thelephora known to me. Biennis is not known to me, but is not reported to be 

 foetid. I wish some one would favor me with specimens of Thelephora biennis if any one 

 knows it. 



NOTE 267. Stereum Ravenelii, from R. P. Burke, Alabama. This is the first collection 

 we have gotten. It is larger and more robust than the types (cfr. Syn. Stip. Stereums, 

 fig. 543). It is a Southern species only and it is a question if really distinct from Stereum 

 nitidulum of the tropics. The latter has however, a long, rooting base, which we have 

 never seen in connection with our American plant. 



Dr. Burke informs us that Stereum Ravenelii is quite a frequent species in his 

 locality, growing in the ground in swampy regions. As far as I know, the original collec- 

 tion by Ravenel was all that was previously known. It shows how little is known regarding 

 the occurrence of Southern species. 



NOTE 268. Polyporus Patouillardii, sent by E. Cheel, Australia. This is the first 

 specimen known from Australia and its occurrence is of much interest. Very recently, 

 1907, it was named from Brazil by Rick, then we got specimens from Japan, G. Yamada, 

 then from Philippines, E. D. Merrill, and now it comes in from Australia. (Compare 

 Synopsis Polyporus page 366 and Note 253, Letter 56). 



The Australian plant differs slightly from the Brazilian plant, in fact enough to 

 make a "new species" if one wants to multiply the species, but the difference can only 

 be noted on comparison, and of course, from one specimen we cannot say it is constant. 

 The context of the Australian plant is coarser to the eye, and the microscope shows the 

 hyphae slightly thicker and of much deeper color. The different hyphae of the pore tissue 

 are not in evidence, and I find no setae. The spores are slightly smaller, 3x5. These 

 differences would ordinarily constitute "a species," but I feel it is practically the same plant, 

 and it would only obscure the subject to propose one. The history of Polyporus Patouil- 

 lardii which has all developed in the last three years, is evidence of what little is known 

 relatively about foreign polypores. 



NOTE 269. Polyporus Mylittae, from E. Cheel, Australia. There occurs in Australia 

 a frequent tuberaceous growth, which was used by the natives as food and called "native 

 bread" or "blackfellow's bread." While it was supposed to be of fungal origin, its 

 nature was unknown for many years and Berkeley (in 1839), presuming that it belonged 

 to the Tuberaceae, although he records that he could not find any spores, named it Mylittae 

 australis. It was compiled in Vol. 8 Saccardo under the uncertain genera. 



The exact nature of this growth was a mystery, until 1885 when H. T. Tisdall found 

 specimens that had developed fructifications of a Polyporus and gave an account of it in 

 the Victorian Naturalist. Specimens were sent to Kew and named Polyporus Mylittae 

 (1892). These are the finest fruiting bodies I have seen. I found no specimen at Kew 

 but at the British Museum is a photograph of a sclerotium bearing several deformed 

 sphorophores. The specimens from Mr. Cheel are regular and perfect. As the original 

 description is inaccurate in several particulars, we would describe it as follows: 



Pileus 2-4 cm. with a sulcate, minutely tomentose surface. Color raw umber (brown). 

 Flesh dry, subligneous, in two layers, each 1 to 2 mm. thick, the upper light brown, the 

 lower white. Stipe mesopodial, 5-10 mm. thick, 2-3 cm. long, deformed. Pores small, 

 round or irregular, 2 to 3 to a mm. 2-3 mm. long. Spores abundant, cylindrical, 2x6 



miC 'The a fruiting bodies are attached to the sclerotia by thick, white, branched mycelial 

 cords, that permeate the substance of the sclerotia. 



As there is not a specimen of Polyporus Mylittae as far as we have found in any 

 other museum of Europe or the United States, it is needless to add that we are particularly 

 glad to get these from Mr. Cheel. The species was included in our Synopsis in Section 38 

 (Ovinus). It should be moved to Section 8 (Lignosus). 



NOTE 270. Polyporus australiensis, from E. Cheel, Australia. Published only last 

 year by E. M. Wakefield in Kew Bulletin, 1914, page 157. It is the first spec.men I have 

 received although I saw at Kew several specimens from Australia, it having been determir 

 mostly by Cooke, as Polyporus portentosus, Polyporus stipticus and Polyporus retiporus, 

 three species that have no resemblance to each other and no resemblance to this. 11 tl 

 is any other subject on earth that had as little truth, or is as inaccurate as Cooke s worK 



5 



