Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

awakened from his Rip Van Winkle sleep. Evidently a number of years ago, he sent
specimens to Bresadola, Ellis, Morgan, and Peck, and the book is based on the specimens
so named. Where different men sent him different names for same plant, it appears under
both names in the book. For instance, his first two Fomes, F. populinus and F. connatus,
the former determined no doubt by Bresadola, the latter by some American, but both the
same plant, and every one who is informed on the subject knows that Fomes populinus is
only a name that Bresadola proposed to substitute for Fomes connatus, and never claimed
that it was anything different. Still, both species appear in Neuman's book with two
pages of text, showing what the "difference" is.
I understand that Dr. Kauffman is -working on a book on the Polyporus of Michigan.
When it comes out I expect it to be worth having, for Dr. Kauffman is not twenty years
back on the subject. The most commendable feature of Neuman's book is the fact that
he does not bother any with Murrill's jargons. He has evidently heard some vague rumor
about Murrill's "work" on the subject, but did not consider them of enough importance
to devote any space to them. Neuman's nomenclature is very conservative, and if it were
not for the old errors of American Mycology that still persist in the book, it would be
a pretty fair work.
NOTE 318. Polyporus udus, as illustrated by Junghuhn in Hoeven & de Vries Tijdschrift,
1840, is same plant that I collected in Samoa and was named Polyporus fuscomaculatus
in Mycological Notes, page 49. The picture is exactly the fresh plant as I well
remember it in Samoa.
NOTE 319. Polyporus radiatus, from Burt Leeper, Ohio. It has been lately claimed
that this plant has a sclerotium. I doubt whether it is a sclerotium or an extended root
stalk. The subject needs further observation, and as we occasionally find this unique
species in our woods we will dig it up next time we find it.
NOTE 320. Hydnum velutinum, from Miss Ann Hibbard, Massachusetts. These were
received fresh with a note, "can squeeze out red juice." I did not know before that was
a character of this species. Hydnum ferrugineum is the only species that has the reputation
of exuding reddish drops, but this, with its even pileus, cannot be Hydnum ferrugineum.
NOTE 321. Irpex mollis, from L. O. Overholts, Pennsylvania. Very close to Irpex
pachylon (called Irpex crassus in American traditions), and heretofore confused by me,
but differs in slightly reddish cast in drying and spores 3x5. They are globose, 4 mic.
in the latter.
NOTE 322. Strobilomyces pallidus in our Southern States. From F. A. Wolf, Alabama.
We have received from F. A. Wolf, Alabama, what appears to be the above species,
heretofore only known from Australia, and an addition to our scanty Strobilomyces native
flora. Tha common Strobilomyces strobilaceus of the Northern States has dark, fuliginous
scales, and we were impressed at once with the pale scales of these specimens. On examination
we find it has entirely different spores, viz: Oblong, 7x20 mic. colored, tmooth,
with fine striations, and on comparison seems to be same as Australian species, excepting
a more slender stem. Berkeley based the genus Strobilomyces on the globose
spores (cfr. Note 82, Letter 45), hence this plant does not belong to the genus, and our
friend McGinty proposes for it the name Strobilofungus pallidus (Cooke), McGinty. However,
as by use the name Strobilomyces has acquired a different meaning from the original
definition, (cfr. note cited) we believe it would be better to allow it. to stand.
There are several species of Strobilomyces in Australia, but Strobilomyces strobilaceus
(and a doubtful species S. floccopus) are the only species heretofore attributed to the
United States or Europe.
NOTE 32S. Lachnocladium Micheneri, from Miss A. Hibbard, Massachusetts. As
usually known in American mycology and surely correct. It is often found growing over
leaves and is noteworthy from the abundant, white mycelium at the base of the plant.
The stem is pubescent, hence classed as Lachnocladium by Berkeley, but this genus is
very indefinite as found in Saccardo. It is a question if it is not better classed as Clavaria.
Bresadola claimed that it is the same as Clavaria byssiseda of Europe also that the
American names Clavaria leucotephra, Clavaria fragrans, and Clavaria pinophila are
synonyms, all of which is doubtful to me. As to Clavaria byssiseda, which I do not know
in Europe, it does not appear to be the original figure by Persoon, and as to others cited,
viz: Holm and Patoaillard, it has no possible resemblance to them I shall therefore call
it Lachnocladium (or Clavaria) Micheneri.
NOTE 324. Hydnum fasciatum, from Miss Ann Hibbard, Massachusetts. Heretofore
only known from a single specimen in Peck's herbarium. I thought when I saw it that
it was a good species, 'nut Miss Hibbard's fine collection shows that it is only a strongly
zoned form of Hydnum zonatum, for zoned and unzoned plants are in the same collection.
The plant has hyaline, tubercular spores, but does not belong in the genus (Phellodon
sic^ where Banker places it. While the spores are hyaline, the spines are deeply colored
and the plant should be classed by the side of ferrugineum and scobiculatum. This is
probably the original of Hydnum zonatum.
NOTE 325. Hydnum aurantiacum. from L. W. Riddle, Massachusetts. In the "broad
sense " as the species is generally considered, and as I found the plant abundant in bweden,
next 'to the orange color the most prominent feature was its strongly colliculose pileus
and subconical form. Sometimes we have this colliculose form in the United States, but
most of my collections as received from Mr. Riddle, and recently from Mr Ballou, have
a relatively even, thin pileus, and at first sight appear quite different. In going over
my lot of specimens, however, I find so many intermediate collections that I believe it is
not practical to distinguish these two forms even by varietal names.
7