awakened from his Rip Van Winkle sleep. Evidently a number of years ago, he sent 

 specimens to Bresadola, Ellis, Morgan, and Peck, and the book is based on the specimens 

 so named. Where different men sent him different names for same plant, it appears under 

 both names in the book. For instance, his first two Fomes, F. populinus and F. connatus, 

 the former determined no doubt by Bresadola, the latter by some American, but both the 

 same plant, and every one who is informed on the subject knows that Fomes populinus is 

 only a name that Bresadola proposed to substitute for Fomes connatus, and never claimed 

 that it was anything different. Still, both species appear in Neuman's book with two 

 pages of text, showing what the "difference" is. 



I understand that Dr. Kauffman is -working on a book on the Polyporus of Michigan. 

 When it comes out I expect it to be worth having, for Dr. Kauffman is not twenty years 

 back on the subject. The most commendable feature of Neuman's book is the fact that 

 he does not bother any with Murrill's jargons. He has evidently heard some vague rumor 

 about Murrill's "work" on the subject, but did not consider them of enough importance 

 to devote any space to them. Neuman's nomenclature is very conservative, and if it were 

 not for the old errors of American Mycology that still persist in the book, it would be 

 a pretty fair work. 



NOTE 318. Polyporus udus, as illustrated by Junghuhn in Hoeven & de Vries Tijd- 

 schrift, 1840, is same plant that I collected in Samoa and was named Polyporus fusco- 

 maculatus in Mycological Notes, page 49. The picture is exactly the fresh plant as I well 

 remember it in Samoa. 



NOTE 319. Polyporus radiatus, from Burt Leeper, Ohio. It has been lately claimed 

 that this plant has a sclerotium. I doubt whether it is a sclerotium or an extended root 

 stalk. The subject needs further observation, and as we occasionally find this unique 

 species in our woods we will dig it up next time we find it. 



NOTE 320. Hydnum velutinum, from Miss Ann Hibbard, Massachusetts. These were 

 received fresh with a note, "can squeeze out red juice." I did not know before that was 

 a character of this species. Hydnum ferrugineum is the only species that has the reputa- 

 tion of exuding reddish drops, but this, with its even pileus, cannot be Hydnum ferrugineum. 



NOTE 321. Irpex mollis, from L. O. Overholts, Pennsylvania. Very close to Irpex 

 pachylon (called Irpex crassus in American traditions), and heretofore confused by me, 

 but differs in slightly reddish cast in drying and spores 3x5. They are globose, 4 mic. 

 in the latter. 



NOTE 322. Strobilomyces pallidus in our Southern States. From F. A. Wolf, Ala- 

 bama. We have received from F. A. Wolf, Alabama, what appears to be the above species, 

 heretofore only known from Australia, and an addition to our scanty Strobilomyces native 

 flora. Tha common Strobilomyces strobilaceus of the Northern States has dark, fuliginous 

 scales, and we were impressed at once with the pale scales of these specimens. On ex- 

 amination we find it has entirely different spores, viz: Oblong, 7x20 mic. colored, tmooth, 

 with fine striations, and on comparison seems to be same as Australian species, ex- 

 cepting a more slender stem. Berkeley based the genus Strobilomyces on the globose 

 spores (cfr. Note 82, Letter 45), hence this plant does not belong to the genus, and our 

 friend McGinty proposes for it the name Strobilofungus pallidus (Cooke), McGinty. How- 

 ever, as by use the name Strobilomyces has acquired a different meaning from the original 

 definition, (cfr. note cited) we believe it would be better to allow it. to stand. 



There are several species of Strobilomyces in Australia, but Strobilomyces strobilaceus 

 (and a doubtful species S. floccopus) are the only species heretofore attributed to the 

 United States or Europe. 



NOTE 32S. Lachnocladium Micheneri, from Miss A. Hibbard, Massachusetts. As 

 usually known in American mycology and surely correct. It is often found growing over 

 leaves and is noteworthy from the abundant, white mycelium at the base of the plant. 

 The stem is pubescent, hence classed as Lachnocladium by Berkeley, but this genus is 

 very indefinite as found in Saccardo. It is a question if it is not better classed as Clavaria. 

 Bresadola claimed that it is the same as Clavaria byssiseda of Europe also that the 

 American names Clavaria leucotephra, Clavaria fragrans, and Clavaria pinophila are 

 synonyms, all of which is doubtful to me. As to Clavaria byssiseda, which I do not know 

 in Europe, it does not appear to be the original figure by Persoon, and as to others cited, 

 viz: Holm and Patoaillard, it has no possible resemblance to them I shall therefore call 

 it Lachnocladium (or Clavaria) Micheneri. 



NOTE 324. Hydnum fasciatum, from Miss Ann Hibbard, Massachusetts. Heretofore 

 only known from a single specimen in Peck's herbarium. I thought when I saw it that 

 it was a good species, 'nut Miss Hibbard's fine collection shows that it is only a strongly 

 zoned form of Hydnum zonatum, for zoned and unzoned plants are in the same collection. 

 The plant has hyaline, tubercular spores, but does not belong in the genus (Phellodon 

 sic^ where Banker places it. While the spores are hyaline, the spines are deeply colored 

 and the plant should be classed by the side of ferrugineum and scobiculatum. This is 

 probably the original of Hydnum zonatum. 



NOTE 325. Hydnum aurantiacum. from L. W. Riddle, Massachusetts. In the "broad 

 sense " as the species is generally considered, and as I found the plant abundant in bweden, 

 next 'to the orange color the most prominent feature was its strongly colliculose pileus 

 and subconical form. Sometimes we have this colliculose form in the United States, but 

 most of my collections as received from Mr. Riddle, and recently from Mr Ballou, have 

 a relatively even, thin pileus, and at first sight appear quite different. In going over 

 my lot of specimens, however, I find so many intermediate collections that I believe it is 

 not practical to distinguish these two forms even by varietal names. 



7 



