Lloyd Mycological Writings V4.pdf - MykoWeb

Polystictus Persoonii or Trametes Persoonii, as it may also be well called, for it takes
both thick and thin forms, is a most abundant and common species throughout the tropical
world. It is so variable that I often get it under several numbers from the same collector.
Naturally, it had many names and I consider the following among its aliases. Persoon, in
the first and only account he gave of foreign species, had three specimens, which he called
Polyporus corrugatus, scabrosus and fusco badius. Montagne decided they were all the same,
and graciously proposed to call it Polyporus Persoonii. Cooke attributed this name to Fries,
but I do not find where Fries used it at all. Klotzsch named it Daedalea sanguinea, and this
name was mostly used by Berkeley. Klotzsch also called it Wightii (in mss.), Koenig named
it cruentus (in mss.), and Montagne published it as Hexagona cruenta. Junghuhn named it
indecorus and (apparently) sanguineus, the latter being changed by Leveille to platypilus.
Patouillard named it Trametes nitida. Berkeley usually referred it to Klotzsch's name (sanguinea),
but also named it Moselei, tostus and aruensis. A specimen at Kew was labeled
Trametes Junghuhnii by Berkeley, though where the name came from, I do not know. A
good illustration of the plant was given in Bull. Soc. Myc. France under the name Daedalea
conchata, it being one of Bresadola's early discoveries. Last but not least, our own Mr.
Murrill, after some half hour studies in various museums of Europe, where hundreds of specimens
are preserved under seventeen different names, came back to New York and discovered
it was not only a "new species" (sic) (cubensis), but a "new genus" Earliella. Had he discovered
on landing in New York that Broadway was a new and unfrequented street, it would
have been just as true and no less absurd.
NOTE 416. Polyporus sulphureus. Referring to this plant, Prof. Fetch, of Ceylon,
writes: 'It is never yellow here, usually pallid or in dry weather ochraceous or wood color.
I once gathered a brick-red piece. As a rule the pilei are thinner, flatter, and more rigid than
the European plant." Polyporus sulphureus with us usually loses its color in drying. It is
very rarely that I receive anything but pale, discolored specimens. I think it discolors also
in situ when its gets old, and Polyporus casearius of Fries' records, and also Peck's records,
are based, I think, on these discolored specimens. If in growing there is a color distinction
between the Ceylon form and the European form, they cannot be distinguished in the dried
specimens.
NOTE 417. "You state in Letter 47 that Lentinus infundibuliformis (the type) came
from Central America. I thought the Ceylon species was the type."' The species was published
from Ceylon, hence I presume, technically, the type was from Ceylon. But I decided
from the evidence at Kew that tbe name was first applied by Berkeley to a plant from Central
America, where he got his original idea of the "species." I think it a case like
is_
"Hymenochaete" dendroidea, which he named from American material but published it from
Ceylonese specimens. In the latter instance, it is immaterial, for the plants are the same.
In the former case, it is not material either, for while the plants are different, both of them
had been given names previously by Berkeley himself. The Ceylonese plant is the same as
Berkeley named Lentinus connatus from the Philippines thirty-two years previously, and the
American plant was named originally by Persoon when Berkeley was a stripling youth, which
did not, however, deter Berkeley from giving it several other names when he became old
enough to engage in this line of discovery.
NOTE 418. I sent Mr. Fred J. Seaver, on request, the cotype of Aleurina
Llpydiana,
as
named by Dr. Rehm. Mr. Seaver has advised me that he finds it the same as Peziza cestrica
of Ellis' exsiccatae. I know very little about Pezizas, but it is gratifying to have these
"Lloydiis" suppressed, for' in my opinion none of them were ever worth the ink it took to
print their names. Hypocrea Lloydii is Hypocrea alutacea or Podocrea, as it is now known.
Geaster Lloydii is Geaster velutinus, as I have stated on several occasions. Tylostoma Lloydii
is, as far as I know, the only Lloydii that is not a synonym, and this plant impresses me as
being a sport, rather than a species. If Mr. Seaver will kindly clear out the Lloydiis in the
Peziza tribe, he will, much to my gratification, pretty nearly wind up the subject.
NOTE 419. Citing "Authorities." Regarding your inquiry as to what name should be
placed after Polyporus pygmaeus, Polyporus ursinus, Polyporus Hookerii, my custom has
been to either write no name at all or write the name of the collector. Others may do as
they please. You might write "Morgan," as Farlow quoted some of my writings. You might
write "Bresadola," as Miss Wakefield has recently done, or the name "McGinty" might be
used. Personally, of course, I do not think the name of any person should be written, but a
name given to a plant, which name should definitely designate the plant. I have no idea
that many mycologists of the present day would care to adopt my views on the subject, but
I have very strong conclusions in the matter, or rather, perhaps, obsessions, and in my own
writings I follow my own way. I would have no quarrel with the custom of placing names
after species, if honestly accomplished, were it not for the world of so-called "new species"
that this procedure has induced. The history of mycology is that there has been no one
interested in the study of classification and establishing "old species" since the days of Persoon
and Fries. Practically all of our modern mycologists have specialized on the promulgation
of new species. This, to such an extent, that the study has come to be a mere jumble of
meaningless names. I may be overly intense on the subject, but I conceive that if those in
the study did not give so much attention to their "new species," they would be more interested
in learning to comprehend the old ones". Surely, it would be better to learn the old
ones first.
But this is not the most deplorable phase of the subject. The old species that were published,
illustrated, and well known years ago, new writers now refer to so-called "new
genera." They omit the name of the man who published the species, and substitute their
own. This, in my view, is the rankest kind of dishonesty, but the excuse is the plea that they
do not wish to miscite the original author. This seems to me to be merely a scheme to steal
the species, and there is an old saying that the devil can quote Scripture to his purpose. I do
not take the matter seriously, however, notwithstanding my strong protest. I am more interested
in getting the straight of the subject than in these schemes that passing day "scientists"
invent or follow to advertise themselves. Extract from letter to Dearness.
8
, 2090