Banker: Type Studies in the Hydnaceae 233 
tion may be to the hyphae could not be definitely determined, and 
probably the question could only be answered by tracing out their 
development in special cultures. 
There remains yet to be discussed the correct name of the 
Schweinitzian species. A plant was described by Schweinitz in 
1822 under the name Sistotrema olivaceum , 6 which was undoubt- 
edly a pileate form of this same species. A specimen in the 
Schweinitz herbarium at Philadelphia which has all the characters 
of this species, including the setae, is there marked “ 540-31 Irpex 
cinnamomeus Epic. 19. Hydnum olivaceum Schw. On decaying 
brush. Salem.” In the commentary on Schwenitz’s work by 
Berkeley and Curtis, 7 this very specimen is commented on as “ 540 
H. olivaceum Schwein. ! ” with the remark that it belonged to 
Irpex cinnamomeus. 
In the herbarium of E. Fries at Upsala, is to be found a speci- 
men marked “ Hydn. olivaceum L. v Schweinitz,” a specimen un- 
doubtedly received by Fries from Schweinitz. This has all the 
characters of the species under discussion, including the setae. 
This specimen also has a critical note appended to it by Bresadola, 
“ Non differt ab Irpici cinnamomeo & fuscescente.” 
As to Irpex cinnamomeus Fries, nothing that could be re- 
garded as a true type was found at Upsala. However, all the 
specimens there placed under this name were communicated by 
Ellis from North America through De Thiimen and were clearly 
our American plant with the' characteristic teeth and setae. 
There is probably no type specimen of Sistotrema fuscescens 
Schw. in existence, but the forms we are now discussing have 
been more commonly known to American mycologists under the 
specific name fuscescens either as Hydnum fuscescens or as Irpex 
fuscescens. In the Schweinitz Herbarium, there is a specimen 
marked “ 580-7 Syn. Fung. I. cinnamomeus Epic. 19. Irpex 
fuscescens Schw. Beth.” which is unquestionably the same species 
that we are now discussing. 
We append the correct names of the species here discussed, 
with their synonymy. It needs only to be added that Hydnochaete 
Bres. should be placed in the family Polyporaceae as treated by 
6 Schw., Schr. Nat. Ges. Leipzig i: ioi. 1822. 
? Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. II. 3: 215-218. 1856. 
