MYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G„ LLOYD 
Page 
944 
pseudosenex. ana I have so referred others since. But that is not 
satisfactory for while both are heavy species with the same context, 
pores and spores and absence of setae, Pomes durissimus does not have 
distinct pore layers and the strongly distinct pore layers of Femes 
pseudosenex are its most prominent feature. Berkeley had the plant 
several times and mostly misreferred it to Femes rhabarbarinus and 
one Cuban collection (Wright £64 ) to Fomes calcitratus, both of which 
differ under the microscope, both having setae, Murrill got it abun¬ 
dantly and mostly misreferred it to Fomes extensus, a plant with 
hyaline spores, but his description e.pplies to Fomes fastuosus, a 
similar plant with brighter context color, velvety surface when young 
and larger spores and is not a heavy species. We dislike to propone 
a.- new name for such an old species but we do not know of a single 
name that has been correctly applied to it. But there is another 
plant, Fomes Caryophylli that is so close to Fomes durissimus that it 
is going to be embarrassing to show the difference. As I compare 
the specimens I have they appear to me to be different species, but 
to convey that to another is not so easy. But in Fomes Caryophylli 
the old pores become paler than the fresh ones and when compared 
with Fomes durissimus the texture is coarser to the eye. 
POLYPORUS VANDYKEI FROM JOHN GOSSWEILER, AFRICA (Fig, 1747).- 
Pileus thin, rigid, 6-8 cm. broad, l /2 cm. thick, from a reduced 
base. Surface dull, Vandyke brown, not zoned. Context thin, 1-2 mm. 
Vandyke brown. Pores minute, 3-4 mm. long with brown tissue and 
white mouths. Spores not surely found. 
A peculiar species in its color and we think belongs to Cano— 
dermus, Section 103, although we do not find its spores and one not 
familiar with Ganodermus would hardly see its relations. We need a 
name for it and the name will' fix it for us even if it does not 
belong in this section. 
CORRECTIONS 
In looking over the sheets after they were printed a- few 
errors were noted, remarkably few considering the fact that in a 
publication of this kind the proof can not be read. Such errors as 
occur are from misreading my poor writing. 
Poria ochraceus, page 916, 3rd line in the 2nd paragraph 
should be Poria obducens. One name, however, is about as good as 
another for a Poria, for I do not believe that any one knows much 
about any of them. The Poria work to date is very much of a bluff. 
Under Hydnum pulcher, page 918, the word "smooth" should be 
inserted before "colored spores". Of course, we know that many Hyd- 
nums have colored spores, but smooth, colored spores (of the Conio- 
phora type ) are rare. 
The reference to Dr. Torrey in connection with Xylaria pedun- 
culata on page 919 is an error. It was Dr. Engelmann who found this 
rare species near St. Louis, not Dr, Torrey. Another case of a 
faulty memory on my part and where I did not take the trouble to look 
up the record. 
"glabroud", page 920, 3rd paragraph, should of course be 
glabrous. 
"Hypocrealla", page 924 2nd paragraph, should be Kypocrella. 
"Kretzschmaria Kunziana , page 939, 6th paragraph, should be 
Kurziana, as the name is correctly spelled in the last line of the 
same paragraph. 
