MYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 1037 
It is surely inappropriate that Ellis' name should be applied to an 
African plant. It seems that some correspondent of Ellis', probably 
a missionary of Africa named Cole sent him a few specimens. As Ellis 
knew nothing of tropical species he sent them to Hennings in Berlin 
who showed his gratitude by naming one Trametes El!isiana. Nice col¬ 
lections are in the Ellis herbarium which are really co-types, but the 
type at Berlin we did not locate as we failed to photograph them at . 
New York we can only present in our figure a little frustule that w r e 
brought home with us. Polystictus Ellisianus has been given as a 
synonym for Poly st ictus Dybowskii but not for me. 
TRAMETES CUPREO-ROSEA PROM ERNEST KNAEBEL, COLORADO (Fig.1899 
above ).- If this has been received from Australia it would have been 
referred to the above without hesitation, so I see no reason for not 
so referring it when received from our western region, although I 
admit it is practically the same as our common Trametes carnea but it 
is the only collection I have seen with us. The appressed, fibrillose, 
upper surface is the main difference between it and our common 
species which has usually a smoother upper surface. Our figures in 
contrast will show this. As a matter of fact, however, Trametes 
cupreo-rosea, common in Australia, with strongly fibrillose surface: 
Trametes carnea, (Fig. 1899 below) our common pink species with a 
smooth surface; Trametes Feei, common in American tropics, about the 
same as our plant but usually larger and brighter color; Trametes 
Palliseri, a rare, western plant with a silvery surface are in reality 
one and the same species. They differ in the smoothness and roughness 
of the surface and size of pores and in these features they run all 
together. None of them occur in Europe. In addition,Fomes roseus, 
rare in Europe, as with us, is a true Fomes but belongs in this same 
series in fact. 
POLYPORUS SACER VAR. RHINOCEROTIS, FROM E.D. MERRILL 
PHILIPPINE (Fig. 1900).- There are three collections of this plant 
now known from the Philippines, all collected in 1919. We gave a fig¬ 
ure and account of Polyporus sacer on page 122 of stipitate Polyporoids 
It is originally an African plant, exceptional in having a sclerotium 
and was known and named by Fries. Polyporus rhinocerotis was named 
by. Cooke from Malay. He only made three mistakes. He described the 
stem as laccate and it has not the slightest indication of that char¬ 
acter. He stated it grows on trunks. It grows in the ground, and a 
Polyporus with a sclerotium growing on a trunk would be about as 
natural as a potato growing on a peach tree. He classes it as Fomes 
and Polyporus sacer he classes as Polystictus. Both are virtually the 
same plant and a Fomes has about as much suggestion of Polystictus as 
a sheet of paper has of a lump of coal. In my view' it is neither 
Fomes nor Polystictus but Polyporus. When I w r rote the paper I thought 
Polyporus rhinocerotis different in having more minute pores than 
sacer, but both are minute. We have learned more since, having re¬ 
ceived it from Ceylon and the Philippines, and have noted somewhere 
where Bresadola has recorded a small pored variety. His small pored 
variety is no doubt Polyporus rhinocerotis which is better as a small 
pored variety. But it is curious that in Africa, and we have several 
collections from Africa, the pores while minute are larger than they 
are as it grows in any other country. We present Fig. 1901 pores of 
