MYCQLOGICAI, FOIES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 1024 
has no more suggestion of Tremella mesenterica than it has of a lump 
of chrome potash. If Mr. Coker had. been familiar with the situation 
he could have saved himself a lot of vague discussion of a subject 
he evidently knew very little about. 
As to its being Faematelia, Mr. Coker had an entire mis¬ 
conception of the genus as it has been understood. The two species 
that now pass as Faematelia in our books are really different genera, 
different ideas entirely. Both have a gelatinous, hymenial stratum 
surrounding a center of an entirely different texture. They have 
structure. In Faematelia encephala (the original 
species) the interior is fleshy (not gelatinous) and in Faematelia 
nucleata the "nuclei" are calcareous (not gelatinous. ) Coker's plant 
has the tissue ho mogene ous. all gelatinous. In fact it is a typical 
iTQ meila in ever y character . Perhaps the interior is a little paler, 
but of the same texture, made up of the typical, slender hyphae of 
all gelatinous tissue. Mr. Coker would be more successful in find¬ 
ing "new species" if he first learns the "old genera," While the 
specimen I have from Mr, Coker is not so foliaceous I think it is 
Tremella aurantia, the same general form and the same color as I 
remember it the only time I ever collected it. We so published it 
(Old Species, page 11, fig.225 ) and we still believe it the plant 
Schweinitz described and it agrees (basidia) with the frustule mount¬ 
ed in his herbarium., which has globose basidia and is not a Dacryo— 
myces as the specific name has also been applied in our late writings 
to another plant, following Farlow. Schweinitz confused a Tremella 
and a Dacryomyces, The type specimen in his herbarium mounted, is 
a Tremella as we have assured ourself on two examinations. It i 
practically all gone but there 
The specimens at Upsala and at 
Schweinitz are Dacryomyces. Also an envelope in Schweinitz's her¬ 
barium, teste Coker. We therefore see no objection now to applying 
the name Tremella aurantia to the plant Schweinitz described and 
preserved, and the name Dacryomyces aurantia to the Plant he dis¬ 
tributed 
x b 
is enough left to find the basidia. 
Kew and in the Curtis herbarium from 
and 
5 
as Tremella aurantia, the latter being a Dacryomyces 
not a Tremella. As Mr. Coker was Informed of the substance of the 
above views in a private letter I see no occasion for his statement 
"Mr. Lloyd seems to have changed his opinion as to the species as 
he has seen my plants and agrees with my determination although he 
has illustrated something entirely different as this species," Mr. 
Coker sent Dacryomyces aurantia to me as Dacryomyces chrysospermus 
and I corrected his determination and wrote him in detail its history 
in the museums of Europe and he adopted the correction I gave him 
and then was indiscreet enough to go into print with the above mis¬ 
leading statement, Mr. Coker’s endeavor in this and other instances 
to give a wrong impression of the history of the subject which he 
knew at the time was not correct, may be "science" but it is not good 
policy. 
Whether the little frustule (type) in Schweinitz' herbarium 
of Tremella aurantia is Tremella aurantia .or Tremella mesenterica or 
Tremella lutescens can not be told, but it i: ’one or the other and not 
Dacryomyces aurantia. 
.Berkeley and Cooke habitually confused Tremella mesenterica 
and Dacryomyces aurantia, and specimens of both are found rnis-labeled 
at Kew. They never recognized either species as a Dacryomyces ex¬ 
cepting once when Berkeley discovered Dacryomyces aurantia to be a 
