Polystictus Persoonii or Trametes Persoonii, as it may also be well called, for it takes 

 both thick and thin forms, is a most abundant and common species throughout the tropical 

 world. It is so variable that I often get it under several numbers from the same collector. 

 Naturally, it had many names and I consider the following among its aliases. Persoon, in 

 the first and only account he gave of foreign species, had three specimens, which he called 

 Polyporus corrugatus, scabrosus and fusco badius. Montagne decided they were all the same, 

 and graciously proposed to call it Polyporus Persoonii. Cooke attributed this name to Fries, 

 but I do not find where Fries used it at all. Klotzsch named it Daedalea sanguinea, and this 

 name was mostly used by Berkeley. Klotzsch also called it Wightii (in mss.), Koenig named 

 it cruentus (in mss.), and Montagne published it as Hexagona cruenta. Junghuhn named it 

 indecorus and (apparently) sanguineus, the latter being changed by Leveille to platypilus. 

 Patouillard named it Trametes nitida. Berkeley usually referred it to Klotzsch's name (san- 

 guinea), but also named it Moselei, tostus and aruensis. A specimen at Kew was labeled 

 Trametes Junghuhnii by Berkeley, though where the name came from, I do not know. A 

 good illustration of the plant was given in Bull. Soc. Myc. France under the name Daedalea 

 conchata, it being one of Bresadola's early discoveries. Last but not least, our own Mr. 

 Murrill, after some half hour studies in various museums of Europe, where hundreds of speci- 

 mens are preserved under seventeen different names, came back to New York and discovered 

 it was not only a "new species" (sic) (cubensis), but a "new genus" Earliella. Had he dis- 

 covered on landing in New York that Broadway was a new and unfrequented street, it would 

 have been just as true and no less absurd. 



NOTE 416. Polyporus sulphureus. Referring to this plant, Prof. Fetch, of Ceylon, 

 writes: 'It is never yellow here, usually pallid or in dry weather ochraceous or wood color. 

 I once gathered a brick-red piece. As a rule the pilei are thinner, flatter, and more rigid than 

 the European plant." Polyporus sulphureus with us usually loses its color in drying. It is 

 very rarely that I receive anything but pale, discolored specimens. I think it discolors also 

 in situ when its gets old, and Polyporus casearius of Fries' records, and also Peck's records, 

 are based, I think, on these discolored specimens. If in growing there is a color distinction 

 between the Ceylon form and the European form, they cannot be distinguished in the dried 

 specimens. 



NOTE 417. "You state in Letter 47 that Lentinus infundibuliformis (the type) came 

 from Central America. I thought the Ceylon species was the type."' The species was pub- 

 lished from Ceylon, hence I presume, technically, the type was from Ceylon. But I decided 

 from the evidence at Kew that tbe name was first applied by Berkeley to a plant from Cen- 

 tral America, where he got his original idea of the "species." I think it is_ a case like 

 "Hymenochaete" dendroidea, which he named from American material but published it from 

 Ceylonese specimens. In the latter instance, it is immaterial, for the plants are the same. 

 In the former case, it is not material either, for while the plants are different, both of them 

 had been given names previously by Berkeley himself. The Ceylonese plant is the same as 

 Berkeley named Lentinus connatus from the Philippines thirty-two years previously, and the 

 American plant was named originally by Persoon when Berkeley was a stripling youth, which 

 did not, however, deter Berkeley from giving it several other names when he became old 

 enough to engage in this line of discovery. 



NOTE 418. I sent Mr. Fred J. Seaver, on request, the cotype of Aleurina Llpydiana, as 

 named by Dr. Rehm. Mr. Seaver has advised me that he finds it the same as Peziza cestrica 

 of Ellis' exsiccatae. I know very little about Pezizas, but it is gratifying to have these 

 "Lloydiis" suppressed, for' in my opinion none of them were ever worth the ink it took to 

 print their names. Hypocrea Lloydii is Hypocrea alutacea or Podocrea, as it is now known. 

 Geaster Lloydii is Geaster velutinus, as I have stated on several occasions. Tylostoma Lloydii 

 is, as far as I know, the only Lloydii that is not a synonym, and this plant impresses me as 

 being a sport, rather than a species. If Mr. Seaver will kindly clear out the Lloydiis in the 

 Peziza tribe, he will, much to my gratification, pretty nearly wind up the subject. 



NOTE 419. Citing "Authorities." Regarding your inquiry as to what name should be 

 placed after Polyporus pygmaeus, Polyporus ursinus, Polyporus Hookerii, my custom has 

 been to either write no name at all or write the name of the collector. Others may do as 

 they please. You might write "Morgan," as Farlow quoted some of my writings. You might 

 write "Bresadola," as Miss Wakefield has recently done, or the name "McGinty" might be 

 used. Personally, of course, I do not think the name of any person should be written, but a 

 name given to a plant, which name should definitely designate the plant. I have no idea 

 that many mycologists of the present day would care to adopt my views on the subject, but 

 I have very strong conclusions in the matter, or rather, perhaps, obsessions, and in my own 

 writings I follow my own way. I would have no quarrel with the custom of placing names 

 after species, if honestly accomplished, were it not for the world of so-called "new species" 

 that this procedure has induced. The history of mycology is that there has been no one 

 interested in the study of classification and establishing "old species" since the days of Per- 

 soon and Fries. Practically all of our modern mycologists have specialized on the promulga- 

 tion of new species. This, to such an extent, that the study has come to be a mere jumble of 

 meaningless names. I may be overly intense on the subject, but I conceive that if those in 

 the study did not give so much attention to their "new species," they would be more inter- 

 ested in learning to comprehend the old ones". Surely, it would be better to learn the old 

 ones first. 



But this is not the most deplorable phase of the subject. The old species that were pub- 

 lished, illustrated, and well known years ago, new writers now refer to so-called "new 

 genera." They omit the name of the man who published the species, and substitute their 

 own. This, in my view, is the rankest kind of dishonesty, but the excuse is the plea that they 

 do not wish to miscite the original author. This seems to me to be merely a scheme to steal 

 the species, and there is an old saying that the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose. I do 

 not take the matter seriously, however, notwithstanding my strong protest. I am more inter- 

 ested in getting the straight of the subject than in these schemes that passing day "scien- 

 tists" invent or follow to advertise themselves. Extract from letter to Dearness. 



8 , 2090 



