MYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 983 
only from the type locality," The specimens all look very much 
alike and whether they have any difference or not I can not say, but 
doubt very much, I have noted at Kew the following 'which I think 
have very little value: 
Dacryomyces syringae, Ravenel, S, Carolina, Cooke det. 
H adpressus, Grog, Roumeg.2216. 
" multiseptatus, Winter, Roumeg. 5107, 
" corticioides, Ellis, 2nd ser. 1587. 
This seems to be a confluent species and'I 
think good. But is it different from Arrhytidia 
flava? 
" confluens, Karsten in Rabenh. 3522. 
" viticola Schweinitz (specimen at Kew), 
" Lythri, Desmaz. 1545 (Not a Dacryomyces). 
" Phragmitis, West, Roumeg, 5511, 
" coni genus, Niessl: in Rabenh. 2628, 
" Poae, Libert 135 (Not a Dacryomyces). 
" pallens, Fuc., Fuckel 2092, 
NOTE 931 - PORIA TERRESTRIS: Rev. Bourdot advises me that 
the plant published (Myc, Notes p. 543, fig,744) as Poria mollicula 
is the rare Poria terrestris. This was figured in Persoon's rare 
work and was always a mystery to me. It is a soft, white species 
which reddens when bruised and grows on debris of calcareous stone 
rather than on the earth as Persoon states. It has been confused 
in European accounts with Poria sanguineolenta, a similar species 
that occurs in abundance at times on pine wood. 
NOTE 932 - XYLARIA OBOVATA: Either Berkeley or I have made 
a mistake in regard to Xylaria obovata. and from the evidence I have 
it appears to me it was Berkeley, but it may have been myself. 
Berkeley described it from Saint Vincent, The type is probably in 
the British Museum, What I photographed as the type at Kew (Fig, 
1090, p. 728 ) may not be the true type. I took it on page 728 as 
I thought in the sense of the Kew specimens which seem to me to 
agree with the description. But I recently saw specimens of Wrights 
collection, Cuba, named Xylaria obovata by Berkeley and they are 
not the plant I have so taken, Wright’s plant is Xylaria Ridleyi 
(Fig. 1223) as considered on page 12 of Xylaria Notes. Until I 
revisit London I can not decide which is right but I judge that 
Berkeley was in error in naming the Cuban specimen. If he was right 
then, he was wrong in describing it as having a "black, brittle 
bark" for the "bark" of the Cuban collection is as white as this 
sheet of paper. Xylaria obovata.and Xylaria Ridleyi in the sense 
of what I have published as these are so different they should not 
be confused. Since the question has come up it is apparent that 
Penzigia obovata in the sense of Spegazzini is in the sense of 
Wright’s collection and in this sense it is not a bad Penzigia eith¬ 
er, Xylaria Duchassaingii ( sic ) as named by Rehm from Guadeloupe 
is also surely Xylaria obovata in the sense of the Cuban naming, but 
we still believe not the original Guadeloupe naming., Xylaria obo¬ 
vata in the sense as I published it on p. 728 is in the same sense 
as published by Theiszen. It also developed on a recent examination 
I made of Ellis' collection that it is also in the sense as he took 
it. 
