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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

NOTE 264. Hydnum acre, from Rev. H. Bourdot, Allier, France. Most assuredly this<br />

is not the same plant as our "acrid" species (Hydnum mirabile) as has been stated.<br />

NOTE 265. Thelephoras. I am inclined to think there are four or five species in<br />

Europe usually referred to Thelephora spiculosa. They all have same spores, as most<br />

Thelephoras have, but seem to me different in their habits. I have received six collections<br />

from Rev. Bourdot, Allier, France, and labeled them in my collection as follows:<br />

Thelephora biennis (?) (See Note 266).<br />

Thelephora spiculosa. Growing on pine needles as recorded by Fries.<br />

Thelephora crustosa. Resupinate, technically a Tomentella now.<br />

Thelephora mollissima. Always in frondose woods, sending up ascending pileoli.<br />

Thelephora fimbriata of America mycology, = Thelephora cristata var. fusco-badium<br />

Desm. No. 362. Thelephora cristata, Schroeter, (797) not Fries or Persoon. An incrusting<br />

species with narrow, free border.<br />

NOTE 266. "Thelephora fastidiosa," from Rev. H. Bourdot, Allier, France. I have<br />

received from Rev. H. Bourdot, a specimen, the first of this kind I have seen. It was<br />

labeled "Thelephora fastidiosa, Det. Quelet, 1876" but surely is not of Quelet's Flora 1888,<br />

nor Persoon nor Fries, which is not a Thelephora now. I judge it is biennis of Quelet's<br />

published works. As it was determined as fastidiosa it must have been foetid when fresh,<br />

but has no resemblance to Thelephora palmata or Thelephora diffusa, the only foetid<br />

species of Thelephora known to me. Biennis is not known to me, but is not reported to be<br />

foetid. I wish some one would favor me with specimens of Thelephora biennis if any one<br />

knows it.<br />

NOTE 267. Stereum Ravenelii, from R. P. Burke, Alabama. This is the first collection<br />

we have gotten. It is larger and more robust than the types (cfr. Syn. Stip. Stereums,<br />

fig. 543). It is a Southern species only and it is a question if really distinct from Stereum<br />

nitidulum of the tropics. The latter has however, a long, rooting base, which we have<br />

never seen in connection with our American plant.<br />

Dr. Burke informs us that Stereum Ravenelii is quite a frequent species in his<br />

locality, growing in the ground in swampy regions. As far as I know, the original collection<br />

by Ravenel was all that was previously known. It shows how little is known regarding<br />

the occurrence of Southern species.<br />

NOTE 268. Polyporus Patouillardii, sent by E. Cheel, Australia. This is the first<br />

specimen known from Australia and its occurrence is of much interest. Very recently,<br />

1907, it was named from Brazil by Rick, then we got specimens from Japan, G. Yamada,<br />

then from Philippines, E. D. Merrill, and now it comes in from Australia. (Compare<br />

Synopsis Polyporus page 366 and Note 253, Letter 56).<br />

The Australian plant differs slightly from the Brazilian plant, in fact enough to<br />

make a "new species" if one wants to multiply the species, but the difference can only<br />

be noted on comparison, and of course, from one specimen we cannot say it is constant.<br />

The context of the Australian plant is coarser to the eye, and the microscope shows the<br />

hyphae slightly thicker and of much deeper color. The different hyphae of the pore tissue<br />

are not in evidence, and I find no setae. The spores are slightly smaller, 3x5. These<br />

differences would ordinarily constitute "a species," but I feel it is practically the same plant,<br />

and it would only obscure the subject to propose one. The history of Polyporus Patouillardii<br />

which has all developed in the last three years, is evidence of what little is known<br />

relatively about foreign polypores.<br />

NOTE 269. Polyporus Mylittae, from E. Cheel, Australia. There occurs in Australia<br />

a frequent tuberaceous growth, which was used by the natives as food and called "native<br />

bread" or "blackfellow's bread." While it was supposed to be of fungal origin, its<br />

nature was unknown for many years and Berkeley (in 1839), presuming that it belonged<br />

to the Tuberaceae, although he records that he could not find any spores, named it Mylittae<br />

australis. It was compiled in Vol. 8 Saccardo under the uncertain genera.<br />

The exact nature of this growth was a mystery, until 1885 when H. T. Tisdall found<br />

specimens that had developed fructifications of a Polyporus and gave an account of it in<br />

the Victorian Naturalist. Specimens were sent to Kew and named Polyporus Mylittae<br />

(1892). These are the finest fruiting bodies I have seen. I found no specimen at Kew<br />

but at the British Museum is a photograph of a sclerotium bearing several deformed<br />

sphorophores. The specimens from Mr. Cheel are regular and perfect. As the original<br />

description is inaccurate in several particulars, we would describe it as follows:<br />

Pileus 2-4 cm. with a sulcate, minutely tomentose surface. Color raw umber (brown).<br />

Flesh dry, subligneous, in two layers, each 1 to 2 mm. thick, the upper light brown, the<br />

lower white. Stipe mesopodial, 5-10 mm. thick, 2-3 cm. long, deformed. Pores small,<br />

round or irregular, 2 to 3 to a mm. 2-3 mm. long. Spores abundant, cylindrical, 2x6<br />

miC a<br />

'The fruiting bodies are attached to the sclerotia by thick, white, branched mycelial<br />

cords, that permeate the substance of the sclerotia.<br />

As there is not a specimen of Polyporus Mylittae as far as we have found in any<br />

other museum of Europe or the United States, it is needless to add that we are particularly<br />

glad to get these from Mr. Cheel. The species was included in our Synopsis in Section 38<br />

(Ovinus). It should be moved to Section 8 (Lignosus).<br />

NOTE 270. Polyporus australiensis, from E. Cheel, Australia. Published only last<br />

year by E. M. Wakefield in Kew Bulletin, 1914, page 157. It is the first spec.men I have<br />

received although I saw at Kew several specimens from Australia, it having been determir<br />

mostly by Cooke, as Polyporus portentosus, Polyporus stipticus and Polyporus retiporus,<br />

three species that have no resemblance to each other and no resemblance to this. 11 tl<br />

is any other subject on earth that had as little truth, or is as inaccurate as Cooke s worK<br />

5

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!