L. ROMELL, HYMENOMYCETES OF LAPPLAND. 23 
swear by all authentic specimens and that we should accept 
those only which agree with the published descriptions. If 
both names (molluscus and Vaillantii) are to be saved, I think 
that the first should be applied to Pol. hymenocystis and the 
second to BRESADOLA’S Poria mollusca. 
What Fries called the present species I do not know. In 
his herbarium there is a specimen from Dalarne named »Pol. 
mucidus» which probably belongs here. But several collections 
in BLYTT'S herbarium which FRIES has referred to Pol. mucidus 
(though some seem to belong to Pol. corticola, others to Pol. 
bombycinus etc.) show that it is impossible to tell from the 
authentic specimens what Pol. mucidus of FRIES really is. And as 
none of all these seems to agree with PERSOON’s specimens of Pol. 
mucidus, I think it unadvisable to use that name for the present 
plant which besides does not agree well with the descriptions. 
P. stereoides. — Fig. 2. 
On fallen trunks of Sorbus and Salix at Björkliden, Nuolja, 
Abisko, Jebrenjokk, Stordalen and Torneträsk. At Nattavara 
also on Betula. 
Coriaceus, tenuis, vix I mm. crassus, nunc totus resupinatus 
nuns effuso-reflexus, cervino-fuscus, nigricans, parte reflexa 
zonata, usque ad 3 cm. lata. Pori minuti, 4—5 per mm., pal- 
lide canescentes, sicut pruinati, intus dilatati, dissepimentis ad 
ora pororum crassis, ceterum tenuibus. Sporae hyalinae, ob- 
longae, intus grumosae, 9—12 x 3 !/,—4 y.. 
This plant should probably be considered as the true and 
original Pol. stereoides of FRrES. The name is well adapted 
as the habit very much resembles a Stereum. It agrees exactly 
with a specimen from Femsjó in the herb. of FRIES so named. 
The label is written by Ros. FrıEs, and Erras FRIES probably 
suggested the name or at least approved it, so that the specimen 
can be held authentic. If this specimen were the only one, the 
question might be considered settled in spite of the statement 
»ad truncos abiegnos» which may be correct, though more pro- 
bably is a mistake since nobody else, so far as I know, has found 
this plant on conifers but only on deciduous trees. There is, 
however, also another authentic specimen (with a label written 
by Er. Frres himself) but this belongs to Pol. cervinus PERS. 
(Dedalea mollis Soww., Trametes mollis FR.), a species which 
is really closely allied, though in my opinion specifically dis- 
