Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

THE GENUS POLYPORUS.
In the olden days all fungi with small pores were called Boletus. Persoon
divided them into two sections. First. The fleshy species with pores easily separable
from the pileus, which constitute the genus Boletus as known at the present
time. Second. Those with the pores continuous with the context of the pileus.
The latter section was called Polyporus by Fries, which was accepted by Persoon
and generally used from the appearance of Fries' Systema up to the publication of
the sixth volume of Saccardo's Sylloge (1888).
Fries in his Novae Symbolae (1851) proposed four main divisions of these
plants, viz:
Fomes Perennial, pores in strata.
Polyporus Fleshy annuals.
Polystictus Coriaceous annuals.
Poria Resupinate.
Cooke attempted (a very poor attempt) to arrange the species under these four
heads, as genera, and Saccardo adopted Cooke's arrangement. Since the appearance
of Saccardo, these four genera have been generally adopted by writers on the
subject, and for practical purposes, are about as good for a general division as can
be devised.
Beginning with Karsten, 1881, and ending, it is to be hoped, with Murrill in
the past few years, several have amused themselves (and others) by proposing innumerable
"new genera," based chiefly on the old sections and subsections of the
Friesian system, getting up all kinds of excuses to give them new names and add
their own names to each species as the "authority." As it is very rarely that any
of these proposed changes have been based on a new principle of classification, and
as they have only added to the confusion with a jargon of new names, mycologists
as a usual thing, have honored such work by ignoring it. Personally, I do not consider
it of enough importance to cite in detail even as synonyms.
The genus Polyporus, in the sense as intended in Saccardo and found in this
pamphlet, consists of soft, fleshy species, annuals, excepting in the tropics. The
distinction between Polyporus and Polystictus, which Fries evidently had in mind,
is that when growing, Polyporus is soft and fleshy, and usually moist, and becomes
brittle when dried, while Polystictus has dry, coriaceous or leathery textures when
growing. It is not always easy to decide on these characters especially from dried
specimens, and in practice the thick (or rarely thin) species that dry brittle are
called Polyporus, while the thin, flexible species are called Polystictus. We have considered
the species of Polyporus under two general heads. First: those with a stipe
which we published in a previous pamphlet, The Stipitate Polyporoids, and,
second: the sessile species, included in this pamphlet.
The history of Polyporus species is the general history of mycology. In Europe,
Persoon and Fries defined the most of the species, and the greater part of them are
taken in the sense of these authors. Most of the species can be easily and definitely
traced back to these authors, but in the section of white species it is very difficult
to decide from the scanty and often conflicting evidence what particular species
they had in view. Two men, in recent years in Europe, Bresadola and Romell, have
given critical studies of the history and identity of the Friesian species. We have
endeavored to learn the views of these men, as well as to hunt up and study all the
evidence that exists, and to form our own conclusions. That they are not always
in accord is unfortunate, but unavoidable. These differences will always exist, as
long as each author feels that it devolves on him to take names in their original
meaning, for in a number of cases investigators will arrive at different conclusions.
In the United States the early work was done by Schweinitz, who proposed
as "new species" everything he did not determine (or misdetermine) as being
European. He got the cream of the valid, endemic species, and would no doubt
291