does for it must be admitted it is a kind of nonsense to call a plant "fractipes" 

 because the type specimen happened to have had its stipe broken. As Mr Over- 

 holts does not in a single instance resort to that old, fraudulent argument, the chief 

 stock in trade of all professional name jugglers, "the rights of priority," we are not 

 disnosed to quibble with him over minor differences of opinion. We itemize the few 

 discrepancies for the benefit of those who are sending plants to us for identification, 

 and who are fortunate enough to have Mr. Overholts' work for study and reference. 



Polyporus Bartholomaei is velutinus. 



Polyporus pennsylvanicus is palhdus as named by Peck and probably correct. 

 It is much closer to squamulosus than to any other species. 



Polyporus humilis is fractipes. Humilis is the best name, for fractipes was 



p'olyporus planellus is only a juggle for Polyporus planus. Romell claims it is 

 stereoides of Europe. (Cfr. Note 358.) 



Polyporus Lloydii is Polystictus Greyn. 



Polyporus guttulatus is Polyporus alutaceus. 



Polyporus fibrillosus is Polyporus aurantiacus. 



Polyporus Tsugae is Polyporus lucidus. The original author (Murrill) thought 

 it was not lucidus because he thought lucidus had pores in strata. That was only 

 a bull. In the sense of Overholts it is the acerous wood form of lucidus, and I do 

 not believe it can be distinguished without knowing the host. 



Polyporus resinosus. I call this fuscus now for reasons stated many times in 

 detail. Resinosus is much used, but is a very bad name for it. 



Polyporus nidulans is Polyporus rutilans. 



Fomes albogriseus is surely only young officinalis. 



Fomes Ellisianus is for me same species as Fomes fraxinophilus on a different 



"Fomes fulvus Scopoli ex Gillet " is a different plant from "Fomes f ulvus Scopoli 

 ex Fries," which is still a different plant from " Fomes fulvus Scopoli ex Marcucciana, " 

 which is still a different plant from "Fomes fulvus Scopoli ex Schaeffer," which is 

 still a different plant, etc., etc., etc. I believe there are six different men who have 

 passed on "Fomes fulvus Scopoli," each with a different plant, and I am forced to 

 the conclusion that none of them really know much about what Scopoli did name. 

 Why Mr. Gillet should be singled out as the wise one of the lot I do not know. 



Fomes lobatus was based on a distortion. The author had no idea, however 

 vague, concerning it as a species. Mr. Overholts takes it in the sense as pointed 

 out by Morgan as a species, and Morgan was the first to formulate a specific idea in 

 connection with it. I do not set myself up as a model of honesty, but I think there 

 are few more dishonest things done than to take your ideas of a species from one 

 man and your names from another who happened to stumble over a distortion. 



Trametes rigida. I judge Overholts has the species right, but record of dis- 

 tribution is based on a different plant. I doubt if Trametes rigida occurs in either 

 of the states mentioned. 



Trametes Peckii. When Peck was groping around for names for the common 

 things he found, he sent several specimens to Kalchbrenner, which are still pre- 

 served at Berlin. Kalchbrenner's determinations were only a joke. Thus he de- 

 termined Fomes pini as Daedalea confragosa and others about the same way. He 

 discovered that the common Trametes hispida was a "new species" which he called 

 Trametes Peckii. Every one who has seen the specimen at Berlin, Bresadola, Mur- 

 rill and myself, has referred it to Trametes hispida, but Mr. Overholts evidently 

 considers we were all mistaken. I would not object to holding Trametes Peckii as 

 the light colored form of Trametes hispida (corresponding to Daedalea ochracea 

 as a color form of Daedalea unicolor), but it is a mistake to substitute it for 

 Trametes hispida. 



Lenzites vialis is Lenzites trabea in the sense of Orth and European my- 

 cology, whatever it may be in sense of Persoon. 



Favolus rhipidium is called also Polyporus rhipidium and Gloeoporus rhipi- 

 dium, and it is not very good as either. It is a poorer Favolus, however, than either 

 of the other two. I observed it fresh in Florida last winter and concluded it would 

 not be bad in the genus Gloeoporus if I thought that the genus Gloeoporus was 

 worth maintaining. The entire plant when fresh is somewhat "waxy," but that is 

 : idea from Gloeoporus with fleshy context and gelatinous pores. 



588 



