WCOLOGICAL NOTES C. G. LLOYD Page 1022 
Wright . (578 ). Will' some wise lawmaker specify which is the type? 
The Wright or Schweinitz collection? 1 doubt if the tangle will ever 
be straightened out. 
NOTE 968 - HISTORICAL. POLYPORUS LUCIDUS.- Years ago in 
America it was a tradition that Polyporus lucidus was Fomes lucidus 
and that the European plant had stratified pores, I can remember 
when the rumor went about that our plant which we called Fomes luci¬ 
dus could not be correct because the pores were not stratified. 1 
think it was Underwood who started this. At any rate when Murrill 
heard about it in his primary days he discovered that our plant was 
a "new species" because it did not have stratified pores. i do not 
know whether Murrill believed in Santa Claus then or not but the 
Fomes lucidus myth was of the same order. After Murrill began to 
realize what a bull he had made in proposing Polyporus tsugae as a 
new species on its non—stratified pores, then he tried to side-step 
it by claiming that it differed from Polyporus lucidus in its white 
context, and its habitat on hemlock. There are those who still take 
that seriously, Overholts, for instance. While it is a half truth, 
Polyporus lucidus on hemlock does have paler context than on frondose 
wood, there is about as much specific difference as between a sorrel 
horse and a grey mare. And in addition Polyporus lucidus with us is 
not confined to hemlock wood nor is the context color always white. 
Usually it is brown next to the pores and paler above and we have 
American collections (several) where the context color is just as 
brown as it is in Europe. In a recent number of Mycologia, Murrill 
summarized and corrected a large number of his earlier delusions but 
he still sticks to the Polyporus tsugae story. 
FOMES IGNIARIUS, FOMES FOMENTARIUS AND FOMES APPLANATUS 
The history of these three species is an index of the kind 
of 'work that has been done in mycology. No commoner species grow, 
and yet up to a few years ago practically every writer had his own 
idea as to the identity of each, and no two of them were alike. This 
confusion was due to the established fetishism of "Science" in 
writing the names of authors after the plant names. Thus they write 
"Linnaeus" after Fomes igniarius and Fomes fomentarius, although it 
is doubtful if any one knows what Linnaeus so designated and Linnaeus 
probably did not know himself. Not much can be told from his vague 
description. In one of his works he speaks of igniarius having 
"aculei" and "stipes", characters which are hardly to be found on 
Fomes igniarius nowadays or that which they call igniarius, not 
failing to append "Linnaeus" to it, 
Persoon first referred to Fomes igniarius, Fomes pinicola as 
he afterwards states. Fomes fomentarius, the typical form, Persoon 
had correct, though he misreferred to it as varieties, Fomes appla- 
natus, Polyporus dryadeus and Fomes pinicola. The interpretation 
of both Fomes igniarius and Fomes fomentarius was afterwards based 
by both Persoon and Fries on Sowerby's illustration, PI.132, Fomes 
igniarius, and PI.133, Fomes fomentarius, though in the text it is 
evident that Sowerby under Fomes igniarius referred to Fomes applana- 
tus in part, Fomes fomentarius of Sowerby is correct as known today, 
both his figure and account and he states he had the specimen direct 
from Linnaeus through a former pupil, Dr. Afzelius. 
