Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

Dr. von Schrenk suggests that it may be a form of Fomes fomentarius,
but that is impossible, as it has nothing in common with Fomes
fomentarius. In the museums, however, Fomes igniarius is often
misdetermined as Fomes fomentarius, which is probably the source
of this statement.
The account of Fomes j ..niperinus in North American Flora was
evidently made up from the original publication and reproduces a
number of errors. The spores are merely stated to be "reddish
brown, smooth," (which was copied verbatim). They are so palecolored
that they appear hyaline under a low power. "Spines blunt,"
etc. (also copied). The plant has no "spines" or cystidia, as originally
stated. I think accidental, projecting hyphae have been so mistaken.
I have long suspected that Fomes juniperinus is the same as
Fomes Demidomi, known from a single specimen in the Museum at
Paris from Russia. Both are rare plants, the former known from
but few collections, the latter from the type only in the museum at
Paris. Both grow on-the red cedar (Juniperinus}. Both have a black,
rimose surface. Both have reddish context and exactly the same
spores. In fact, they are the same plant in every particular, and
Fomes Demidoffii is "prior," if one wants to use such an uncouth
name. For my part, I do not intend to do so.
While the plant is rare in our Southern States, it is quite common
(I am told by Prof. Long) in the Southwest (New Mexico), growing
on various species of Juniperinus. Although it is exactly the same
plant as Fomes Juniperinus, and fruiting specimens can not be distinguished
by any character, Mr. Murrill, with his usual liberality, discovered
that the New Mexican plant was a "new species," which he
calls Fomes Earlei.
Messrs. Hedgcock and Long have recently published that Fomes
Juniperinus and Fomes Earlei produce different kinds of "rots" in
the host. While I know nothing on this subject, I venture it will be
found to be a mistake of some kind when the real truth is learned.
I feel so sure that the fruiting bodies are absolutely the same that I
question if it can produce a different "rot" in different localities,
though I can not say to the contrary.
CORRECTION.
In my recent Synopsis of the Stipitate Polyporoids a bad error was made on
page 156 in my synonyms. It was the result of mix of "copy," imbricatus and intybaceus
having been run together in taking off the copy. It should read as follows:
imbricatus, Europe, Bulliard. Generally accepted to be based on an abnormal,
bleached specime/i of sulphureus.
intybaceus Europe, Fries. Said by Fries to be rare and local in Sweden and
is unknown to any one now. I think it was based on frondosus that grew horizontal,
hence the lobes are more flat. The common plant called intybaceus in England is
surely frondosus. Most modern books carry both, but I think no one knows two
different plants to correspond.
Fig. 475 labeled "Lentus ciliatus"
called in the text.
should be "Lentus ciliaris," as plant is
The pores of fusco-maculatus "large" as inadvertently printed.
(p. 130) should be described as "small" not
The photograph of the text) is evidence of this error.
pores (just above the
5 2 3