Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

have gotten more, had he in all cases left specimens from which his species could be
decided. The next work by Berkeley, through Curtis and Ravenel, established a
tradition about American species which was mainly pursued by the following generation,
Peck, Ellis and Morgan. Most of it was correct, but in some cases American
names were used for plants of Europe, the identity of which was unknown to Berkeley.
In quite recent years Murrill has published much. He has proposed so many new
names and made so much confusion that no one pays much attention to them. At
the present time young Overholts is doing much better work on the subject.
As to foreign species it is the same old story. Collections drift into Europe and
the largest part are discovered to be "new species" "described" and "named,"
scraped up and embalmed in pidgin Latin in Saccardo. As the descriptions usually
tell nothing, and not one out of a hundred can be determined with any probability
of truth, the embalming process in Saccardo is the last that is ever heard as to most
of them. When the specimens are preserved in accessible museums, we have hunted
them up and studied them, and have adopted the names for those that we think
have merit. The naming of "new species" in Europe, however, in the past, appeals
to me as very much of a hit-and-miss affair. In my belief, Bresadola is the only
one who has indulged in this pastime who has made any serious endeavor to learn
the identity of the "old species."
Berkeley named the most of the foreign species, and there are relatively few
that are at all common that did not at some time drift in to him. As his herbarium
has been well preserved, Berkeley's names may be had for most of the common
species. The species of Europe and the United States are, I believe, all named (or
multinamed), excepting perhaps a few, rare ones in the outskirts of Eastern Europe
or Western United States. As to foreign ones, the common ones are named, but
there is an embarrassingly large number of rarer collections that I receive from
foreign countries, particularly from Japan, that I am unable to identify with any
named specimen that I have found in the museums. Some of them have been published
in this pamphlet, but most of them remain unnamed in our collection.
We have divided the genus Polyporus into five general divisions following
closely the lines used in dividing the genus Fomes, and basing the general divisions
on color features of the context, pores and spores. The spores of the various species
are recorded as we measure them, and are intended only to give an idea of shape and
size. They vary a few microns in size on the same slide, and our measurements
are of the largest spores that w7e note. In all the colored spored species and in most
of the soft, fleshy, white spored species, the spores are usually in abundance. Where
spores are not found it is generally in species of a hard, dry texture.
As in most groups of fungi, even the Agarics, the hymenium of some species
is characterized by the presence of deeply colored setae, corresponding to those
found in the Thelephoraceae and forming there the "genus" Hymenochaete. Ellis
proposed a "new genus" based on them, but no one ever followed him, as those
who work with Polyporus, do not take setae so seriously as those who work on
Thelephoraceae. A few species have large hyaline, many celled "cystidia" on the
hymenium. No one has proposed a "new genus" based on these "cystidia" in
Polyporus, although it has been done when they occur in Hexagona. Other species
have deeply colored setae-like hyphae imbedded in the tissue, similar to those found
in Fomes pachyphloeus (cfr. Fomes Synopsis, p. 261), and forming the genus "Oxyuris"
for McGinty. I have not heard whether he proposed to make a "new genus"
for these species in Polyporus or to include them in his Fomes genus.
When definite color terms are used in this pamphlet, they are taken from
Ridgway's Standard, and the same remarks are applicable under this head as in
the preface of our Fomes pamphlet.
I have worked several years trying to get the straight of the species of Polyporus,
and there has not been much trouble excepting in connection with the white species.
Some in this section, viz., chioneus, trabeus, lacteus, destructor, albidus, etc., are
not as clear to me yet as I wish they were. We have in our museum abundant
specimens, particularly from the United States, more in number perhaps than in
all other museums combined, and we extend our thanks to our many correspondents
who have aided us with specimens. It is only by constantly handling specimens
that one gets thoroughly familiar with them and their characters. We have worked
over the specimens in all the principal museums of Europe and the United States,
and acknowledge our indebtedness to the various curators of these museums for;
every courtesy in the work.
292