Diehl: Fungi of Wilkes Expedition 39 



U. S. Exploring Expedition; he says, further: "The fungi are 

 few — 30 species only — 8 new."- Collins (9) describes the un- 

 fortunate disposition of various specimens and publications of 

 the Wilkes Expedition. The fungi apparently met a similar ex- 

 perience since less than half can be located. In the early days 

 of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, as revealed by the old 

 handwriting on index cards and by the character of the specimen 

 envelopes, some of these were inserted in what is now the Patho- 

 logical Collections of the Bureau of Plant Industry, where they 

 have been kept intact though unrecognized as belonging to the 

 Wilkes Collection. A search through the governmental herbaria 

 did not reveal the presence of any others. Those numbers that 

 were located are noted in the appended list by an asterisk. The 

 authenticity of these specimens is definitely established by the fact 

 that each contains a note in the peculiar hand-printing used for 

 labels by M. A. Curtis in which the numbers, names, and locali- 

 ties correspond to those in the original list (1). Furthermore, 

 the notes in the publication (1) stating that there were in the 

 collection but one specimen of No. 13, and but two of No. 31, 

 and the agreement of the figure of No. 31, fig. 8, (1) with the 

 specimen absolutely eliminates any doubt respecting these two 

 instances. According to the instructions of J. K. Paulding (10), 

 then Secretary of the Navy, to Commander Wilkes, " You will 

 require from every person under your command the surrender 

 of all journals ... as well as all specimens, etc.," it would ap- 

 pear that it was the intention to keep all specimens entirely under 

 governmental care ; and doubtless the fungi were in charge of 

 Berkeley and Curtis only during their study. This would explain 

 the apparent absence of any of these types from other herbaria 2 

 and a consequent lack of reference to them in the literature. 



It is thus seen that all the types (possibly in sensu stricto) with 

 the exception of No. 20, Favolus platyporus, are preserved. It 

 is worthy of note that Berkeley and Curtis (1) considered No. 

 13, Polyp orus brunneolns, to be similar to the type, giving it a 

 significant status. The orthography of the list is that of the 

 publication "(1). 



2 Through the courtesy of Mr. Arthur W. Hill, Assistant Director of the 

 Royal Botanic Gardens, it has been learned that none of these types is at Kew. 



