272 



Mycologia 



Dissertationes ad scientiam Naturalem pertinentes " 97. 1772, 

 where he used it as the name of a new genus and formed several 

 binomial combinations, thus establishing the genus according to 

 our present rules. The first species in this new genus was 

 named by Scopoli Manina cordiformis which, therefore, becomes 

 its type. Both the description and the illustration of this species 

 show it to be clearly and unquestionably the species which has 

 long been familiar to mycologists as Hydnum Erinaceus Bull. 

 The species associated with this in the genus Manina by Scopoli 

 are also the same type of forms as we have usually associated 

 with H. Erinaceus and which have been likewise segregated by 

 later mycologists under various names. The genus Manina Scop, 

 is, therefore, both technically and logically the genus to which 

 should be referred Hydmim Erinaceus Bull. = Manina cordi- 

 formis Scop, and its natural congeners Hydnum coralloides Scop., 

 H. Caput-ursi Fr., etc.- 



In a previous paper^ the writer referred this group of species 

 to the genus Hericium Persoon, " Neues Mag. fiir die Bot." i : 

 109. 1794. The latter was based on the single species Hydnum 

 coralloides Scop, and now becomes a metonym of Manina Scop. 

 It was strongly suspected at the time that the latter name had 

 priority but it was impossible then to confirm the fact. As later 

 treated by Persoon, Hericium was congeneric with Manina.^ 



The genus Medusina Chevallier, " Fl. Gen. des Env. de Paris." 

 278. 1826, was based on M. patula Ch.Qv. = Manina cordiformis 

 Scop, and is, therefore, a typonym of Manina. Chevallier's 

 genus was also evidently strictly congeneric with Scopoli's. The 

 genus Friesites Karsten, " Medd. Soc. Faun, et Fl. Fenn." 5: 41. 

 1879, and the genus Dryodon Quelet; Karsten, "Rev. Myc." 

 3^ : 19. 1881, were both established on Hydnum coralloides Scop. 

 They are, therefore, typonyms of Hericium Pers. and hence me- 

 tonyms of Manina Scop., with which they are apparently also con- 

 generic. 



In this connection it is necessary to discuss the proposed 

 names and the status of another so-called genus although it might 



^ Mem. Torrey Bot. Club 12: 112, 1906. 



^ C£. Persoon, Comment, de Fung. Clavaef. in Holmskiold Coryph. Clav. 

 155- 1797. 



