06.04.2013 Views

Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

dissectus, Chile, Leveille. Type at Paris too poor for comment. Probably<br />

a little frustule of Polyporus adustus.<br />

dissitus, Ceylon, Berkeley = Polyporus adustus.<br />

dolosa, Java, Leveille as Thelephora (sic) = Polyporus conchoides. Type at<br />

Paris. While the mistaking of a Polyporus as a Thelephora is about as bad a mistake<br />

as one can make, the pores of Polyporus conchoides are so minute, they are<br />

liable to be overlooked. I have taken it for a Stereum myself, so I can not criticize<br />

too severely others who have done it. Fortunately, I found my mistake before I<br />

broke into print.<br />

Dozyanus, Java, Leveille. No specimens exist.<br />

dryophilus, United States, Berkeley = corruscans of Europe, which is the oak<br />

form of Polyporus rheades q. v. for history.<br />

Dussii, West Indies, Patouillard. Unknown to me. Seems close to Oerstedii.<br />

endocrocinus, United Stated, Berkeley. Only known from the type locality<br />

(Cincinnati) being based on a young specimen of Polyporus hispidus sent by Lea.<br />

Morgan incorrectly referred it as synonym for Polyporus Pilotae which is Polyporus<br />

croceus, and Ellis distributed (2508) Polyporus croceus erroneously as Polyporus<br />

endocrocinus. Murrill referred the type to Polyporus hispidus, and the reference<br />

has since been disputed on the sheet at Kew. I have no doubt Murrill is right.<br />

The type does have setae, but setae in all this group of plants are very uncertain<br />

characters.<br />

endozonus, West Indies, Fries. No specimen exists. Guessed by Murrill to<br />

be Polyporus gilvus, probably correctly.<br />

epigeus, Europe, Link. Specimens in his herbarium Berlin are Polyporus<br />

amorphus as now known. This shows the plant was long known before Fries named<br />

it.<br />

erubescens, Europe, Fries. I think based on discolored Polyporus mollis and<br />

the picture cited Rostk. t. 25 I think also is discolored Polyporus mollis.<br />

erythroporus, Europe, Orth. Unknown to me. Description suggests white<br />

Polyporus amorphus but grew on beech.<br />

evolutus, Cuba, Berkeley = Polyporus concrescens.<br />

farinosus, Europe, Brefeld. Compare Brefeld vol. 8 t. 7. Known to no one<br />

else. Something abnormal apparently tending towards Ptychogaster. Were it<br />

not for the different spores, the habits and appearance of the figure is like Polyporus<br />

amorphus.<br />

fuscolutescens, Europe, Fuckel. Said to be resupimate Polyporus nodulosus.<br />

Fendzleri, Cuba, Berkeley. Type resupinate and inderterminable.<br />

fibrillosus, Finland, Karsten. This was published in 1859 (not 1882 as incorrectly<br />

stated) and Karsten has since substituted another plant apparently. I<br />

have not access to the original publication but in 1876 Karsten admits that it was<br />

a synonym for Polyporus vulpinus and described it as "fulvus". Polyporus vulpinus<br />

is a brown plant. In his exsiccatae he distributes an orange red plant under this<br />

name, which has been called Polyporus aurantiacus by Peck. Karsten acknowledged<br />

to Fries that his Polyporus 'fibrillosus was same a's vulpinus, a brown species,<br />

and I do not know whether he has since substituted another plant or whether he<br />

mistook a bright orange red species as being brown. In either case I do not think<br />

it has much value.<br />

Fici, Tunise, Patouillard = Polyporus Oerstedii for me. If distinct it is in having<br />

a darker crust.<br />

fimbriporus, United States, Schweinitz = Polyporus fragilis, probably (cfr.<br />

Letter 50).<br />

flammans, India, Berkeley. Known only from broken type at Kew. It has<br />

brown flesh and pores, no setae, and probably hyaline spores. It goes in Section 95.<br />

Its manner of growth can not be told from the fragments, but certainly not a Merismus<br />

as classed by Cooke, nor is there any application of the name "flammans"<br />

to it. It might be recognized on comparison if found again, but the best way would<br />

be to call it a "new species" and give it a suitable name.<br />

formosissimus, South America, Spegazzini. Unknown to me except from<br />

specimens I have received so named which I think are same as Polyporus Chaffangeoni.<br />

Patouillard referred it to Polyporus resinaceus but all three are about the same<br />

thing. Bresadola has published it as same as renidens.<br />

Friesii, Europe, Bresadola = the indurated form of Polyporus rheades which<br />

Fries called Polyporus fulvus "Scop."<br />

378

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!