iYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 920. 
species" of wasp and called it Vespa crinita. I trust the adoption 
of the specific name will meet the approval of the most rabid 
priorist. Wasps that are so affected (Jig. 1645) have numerous 
slack filaments proceeding from all portions cf the body. They are 
a fungus growth no doubt but what they are no one Knows« They are 
not. is aria for they do not have coni dial spores. Neither is there 
any probability that they are young clubs of Cordyceps for they have 
not that appearance nor is there any Cordyceps Known that they 
could develop into, for the present then we shall have to pass ti 
under the provisional name, Isaria crinita, until some one in the 
tropics where they occur works out their life history. I am in¬ 
formed by Dr, Bernard that this Isaria was named in manuscript by 
I feel that the name should be 
Kooders, Cordyceps Roepkiana, but 
preserved for it that was given so many years ago. 
I will add that not having seen the old entomological work 
where Vespa erinita was named I have tahen the data from Cooke. I 
always feel disposed to give CcoKe full “credit 1 ' for any statement 
taken from him, for it is so often incorrect. 
TREMELLA SPARASSOIDEA 
(Pig.1646 and Myc. Notes p.3 
a section of this plant from 
° 94- 
PROM L. 0, 0VERHCLT3, PENNSYLVANIA 
, Pig,1562).- We present a figure of 
. photograph of Mr. Overholts who 
sends it as Tremella vesicaria. Whether it differs from the usual 
form of Tremella vesicaria with blunt lobes as illustrated page 871 
Pig.1436, to the extent of being a different species is a question. 
But it appears very different and is entitled to a name either as a 
form or a species, Mr. Overholts sent the usual form in a previous 
lot and as both occur with him he is in a better position to decide 
than I as to whether one or two species are involved. 
POLYSTICTUS PAVONIUS PROM DR, JAP 
still 
o. R. WEIR, CUBA (Pig. 
1647).- The identity of the plant Hooker so named about eighty 
years ago from South America is not sure although the type is 
preserved in good condition at Kew. It would be convenient to take 
it in the sense of Dr. Weir’s plant which answers most of the des¬ 
cription and is close if not the same. The bright colored zones 
might be compared to a peacock, but of course that idea is over¬ 
drawn. It reminds one of Polystictus versicolor excepting that this 
iiinute pubes- 
The surface 
is 
almost glabroud with 
cence. In this feature 
the 
it 
faintest indications of a 
differs from the original. 
r tJ 
are all those of Poly¬ 
color, white context and minute white po: 
stictus versicolor. 
Murrill has made two stabs at the identity of Polystictus 
pavonius, neither of them very happy ones. First he mistook it 
for Polystictus tabacinus to which it has no relation worth mention¬ 
ing. Then he took it in the sense of Polystictus arenicolor which 
is nearer the truth, but P. arenicolor is a dull, unicolorous spec¬ 
ies, and if it has any suggestion of a peafowl it must have been 
the female that Hooker had in mind and it is strange he should have 
referred to its bright, variegated colors. Hooker should have 
known that when the bright colors of a peafowl are mentioned it is 
the male that is meant. In this sense ?o?.ystictus pavonius is 
a rare plant, no specimens having been noted by me in the extensive 
collections from the West Indies at the Hew York Gardens or 
elsewhere 
