the genus Polyporus. In a work covering a restricted territory and with a limited 

 number of species, this is practically the best and easiest thing to do. There are 

 no distinct lines between Polyporus and Polystictus, and to call them all Polyporus 

 is an easy way of avoiding several embarrassing species. The only logical ground 

 on which Polystictus can be maintained is that Polyporus has a 'large bulk, and 

 that any plan cutting it up to a reasonable extent helps it along, and Polystictus 

 is well established by custom. 



Mr. Overholts has introduced a new method of citing authorities that is new 

 to me, and while I think it may be criticised and is cumbersome, it is much prefer- 

 able to the old method that has been used. Thus, we read Fomes scutellatus, Schw. 

 ex. Cooke, Fomes ohiensis, Berk. ex. Murrill, Fomes pini, Thore ex. Lloyd, etc. 

 While I consider it is an immaterial detail, it is at least honest, and far less confus- 

 ing than the way some of our English friends would cite the same things, namely, 

 Fomes scutellatus, Cooke, Fomes ohiensis, Murrill, Fomes pini, Lloyd. It also 

 looks better than the old method of putting the author's names in parenthesis and 

 then adding the name of the man who puts it in a genus. Thus, Fomes scutellatus, 

 (Schw.), Cooke. This is the usual way of citing, and it is objectionable, for it looks 

 on the face of it as though Schweinitz was a side issue and Cooke was the main part. 

 The whole system is in the process of decay, and I am glad to see the "ex." in Mr. 

 Overholts' work, because it is a preliminary step to the exit of Mr. Cooke and 

 others who have gotten so much dead-head advertising in this way. According to 

 my opinion, the name Fomes scutellatus is all that need be cited regarding the name 

 of the plant. 



Mr. Overholts' method of name citing is also, in many instances, misleading 

 to anyone who does not know the facts in the matter. Thus, " Polyporus rheades, 

 Persoon, ex Fries" may look well and be according to form, but the truth is, Fries 

 knew nothing about Polyporus rheades of Persoon, did not recognize it when he saw 

 it, but discovered it as a "new species." What practical good there is therefore in 

 citing Mr. Fries' name to Polyporus rheades even as "ex," I am unable to understand. 

 I have no doubt Mr. Overholts is thoroughly conscientious in his citations, and 

 probably thinks he has added something to the subject, but there is so much in his 

 publication that is gratifying that it is not worth while debating over immaterial 

 matters. 



Very few works on mycology have ever been issued with as few errors as there 

 are in this work of Overholts' (excepting the errors of his advertisements, which 

 would be of no value if they were correct), and very few have ever been issued that 

 will prove so practical and useful. 



The publication forms one of the Washington University studies, and I believe 

 is not on sale. The only unfortunate fact about it is that it is not published in book 

 form, for I believe a work of such merit should be in considerable demand. 



DISCREPANCIES IN MR. OVERHOLTS' PAPER. 



We give above a notice of Mr. Overholts' latest work on Polyporus. As we 

 state, we believe it is not only the best, but the only practical and sensible work 

 published, and devoted to the American species. Most of the work, the descrip- 

 tions, the microscopic details, was original with Mr. Overholts and was most ex- 

 cellently and accurately done. In his conception of the species and the names he 

 uses he is in the main in accord with me. Of the hundred and thirty-two species 

 considered, he takes one hundred and seventeen in the same sense that I do and 

 uses exactly the same names that I do. It is quite evident that he has been a close 

 student of my publications, and has followed me in the main. Of course, that is 

 quite gratifying to me, particularly as in his first paper, under the influence of Prof. 

 Fink, who did not know the first elements of the subject, he, after getting the most 

 of his information from me, and from my museum, repudiated as a whole my idea 

 of employing the established nomenclature. We itemize below the few (fifteen) 

 instances where Mr. Overholts does not accord with me in the names used for the 

 plants. All of them were well known to Mr. Overholts and most of them are simply 

 questions of choice between two synonyms which is preferable to use. Mr. Over- 

 holts has done perfectly right to choose the one that appeals to him, and I believe 

 the only way that nomenclature will finally reach stability is for authors to use 

 this discretion and omit their advertisements. In a few instances I may change 

 and follow Mr. Overholts, as in the case of Polyporus humilis for Polyporus frac- 



587 



398415 



