the first collection I have from the United States. The original of Persoon calls for a 

 white plant with reddish surface stains, as this plant has. Stipticus of usual French 

 mycology (in error) is a white plant (albidus) without any reddish tendency. 



NOTE 291. Amaurodermus Brittoni. When I saw this plant in New York, I thought 

 it was Polyporus talpae. It has the same flesh, surface, color, etc. and both are large 

 plants of the American tropics. Brittoni has a short, thick, subcentral stem and Polyporus 

 talpae was of the merismus type but I thought this a stem variation. I find on examining 

 however, that Amaurodermus Brittoni has very large, globose, smooth, pale colored spores 

 20 mic. in diameter. In a water mount they are collapsed, but swell out to normal 

 form in weak, potash solution. They were described as "asperulate 7-8 mic." which is an 

 evident error of observation. 



NOTE 292. Polyporus glomeratus. It was Cooke (originally) then Murrill, then 

 Lloyd that got Polyporus glomeratus wrong, (Cfr. Note 204, Letter 54). Morgan got it 

 right, as a specimen I have from him, so determined, demonstrates. While I believe I have 

 never published to the contrary, excepting by inference in my statement that Dr. Kauffman 

 was the only one who had found it, I wish to correct even this inference. It was the 

 basis of Polyporus radiatus in Morgan's published record, but he afterwards evidently 

 told me that this was an error for Polyporus glomeratus, for I recorded it in pencil, in 

 my copy of his book, which I had forgotten and have just noticed. 



NOTE 293. Polyporus scaurus. From the Pilippines. This species, heretofore only 

 known from Japan (cfr. Letter 44, Note 63) has been received from E. D. Merrill, Philip- 

 pines. The specimens are only in pieces, no stipe indicated, but on comparison are exactly the 

 same plant as from Japan. It was numbered 20,282 and determined as Femes Kamphoveneri, 

 to which it has little resemblance. 



NOTE 294. The world does move. A recent book which has reached our library, 

 "Die Pilzkrankheiten der Landwirtschaftlichen Kulturgewiichse," by Professor Dr. Jakob 

 Eriksson of Stockholm, is the best work we have seen on plant diseases. It is practical, 

 well illustrated, and one can get from such a book a good deal of information on the 

 taxonomic side of the subject. 



What impresses us most however, is the fact that from the beginning to the end of 

 the book, no personal authority is cited for any plant name including the fungus names. 



Writers who are investigating the pathological and practical side of the question 

 are not interested in the quibbles that are going on as to what particular name the plant 

 should be called in order that some particular man should have his name added to it. 

 Let them adopt the name that represents the correct classification according to their 

 views, both generic and specific, and omit the advertising part and mycological nomen- 

 clature will in a very few years take on a definite meaning that it will never get under 

 the present system. The more these so-called taxonomists shuffle the names about, the 

 more confusion is produced. 



If the Pathological Division of the United States Department of Agriculture would take 

 this view of the matter and employ a binomial alone to represent a fungus name, it would 

 do much toward correcting the excessive abuse that has come up in this country. No 

 country on earth is cursed with so many name juggles as we have at present. 



