PERSOONIA

Published by the Rijksherbarium, Leiden

Volume Part 2, 2, pp. 201-210 (1962)

The generic names proposed for Polyporaceae.

Additions and corrections

M.A. Donk

Rijksherbarium, Leiden

This paper contains some additional informationand discussions as well

as corrections of statements and of facts recorded in a previously published “The for paper entitled generic names proposed Polyporaceae”.

INTRODUCTION. —This forms of series entitled "The paper part a generic names and additions and proposed for Hymenomycetes" contains corrections related to

for in "The generic names proposed Polyporaceae" (Donk Persoonia 1: 173-302.

1 i960) which represents the tenth part of the series.

of "The Shortly after the publication generic names proposed for Polyporaceae"

that covered the another paper appeared to a large extent same field: W. B. Cooke,

"The of in 22: genera pore fungi" ( Lloydia 163-207. "1959" [June 30, i960]).

The reader who the two to details will find dis- compares publications as many but he also will find that ofthem crepancies, soon most were repetitions from Cooke's

and that I dealt with them in above previous publications already my mentioned paper, so that there is no need to return to these. Other discrepancies will be

cross-references indicated below. I have also added to those generic names that

Cooke mentioned but that I left because the out altogether names are actually based on species not referable to the 'Polyporaceae'.

Ad Agarico-carnis Paul. — When I discussed Paulet's mycological publications

this several other in connection with and names he coined, I forgot to take into

account a publication by that author which appeared at an earlier date than his

"Traite des Champignons" (1793) and which is entitled, "Tabula plantarum

fungosarum", Parisiis, 31 pp. with 1 table. 179 1. In this paper Paulet established

the he in the "Index" ofthe "Traite des genera was to use Champignons" and which

1 is Part XIV in follows: This of the series. The parts already published or press are as

Part I in Reinwardtia Part ("Cyphellaceae") 1: 199-220. 195 1; II (Hymenolichenes) in

Reinwardtia Part III in 2: 435-440. 1954; ("Clavariaceae") Reinwardtia 2: 441-493. 1954;

Part IV in Reinwardtia Part V in (Boletaceae) 3: 275-313. 1955; ("Hydnaceae") Taxon 5:

Part VI 69-80, 95-115. 1956; (Brachybasidiaceae, Cryptobasidiaceae, Exobasidiaceae) in

Reinwardtia Part VII in 6: 4: 113-118. 1956; ("Thelephoraceae") Taxon 17-28, 68-85,

PartVIII 106-123. 1 957; (Auriculariaceae, Septobasidiaceae,Tremellaceae, Dacrymycetaceae) in Taxon 7: 164-178, 193-207, 236-250. 1958; Part IX ("Meruliaceae" and Cantharellus 28: s.str.) tnFungus 7-15. 1958; [Part X] "The generic names proposed for Polyporaceae" "The in Persoonia 1: 173-302. i960; [Part XI] generic names proposed for Agaricaceae",

in Part XII in XIII press; (Deuteromycetes), press; Part (Additions and corrections to

Parts I-IX), in press. Persoonia Vol. Part 202 2, 2, 1962

registered the scientific names of the genera and species he described under French names in the preceding text. All generic names were accompanied by descriptions (in Latin).

The following corrections in the places of publications are to be made.

Tab. PI. Agarico-carnis Paul., Fung. n. 1791 (devalidated name).

Tab. PI. Agarico-igniarium Paul., Fung. 10. 1791 (devalidated name).

Tab. PI. Agarico-pulpa Paul., Fung. 12. 179 1 (devalidated name).

Agarico-suber Paul., Tab. PI. Fung. 9. 179 1 (devalidated name).

Apus (C. Nees) ex S. F. Gray.—'Agaricaceae' (see Part XI, in press).

Ad Agaricon [Tourn.] Adans. — The remark (p. 181), "I have not come across

valid of Tourn. after the date of these a publication Agaricus starting-point (1821) fungi", is to be crossed out and the following changes to be made.

Medic. Fl. N. 186. — Agaricus [Tourn.] Rafin., Amer. 2: 1830. VALID PUBLI-

This is account in which he took this in its CATION. Rafinesque's up early name original (Tournefortian) sense:

"AGARICUS. Punk. Many species, growing on decayed trees. All more or less styptic and

useful to make the Agaric, a soft Punk is the Indian name all bitter, powder .... for perennial

on trees and of a nature: useful touch fungi growing spongy to make spunk or wood . . .."— cit. Rafinesque (op. pp. 186-187).

Although there is no reference to De Tournefort's work, it is clear that Rafinesque

" had Agaricus Tourn. in mind and not Agaricus L., which he called Amanita Lam."

The above contains sufficient quoted account just descriptive matter to ensure valid of the publication name.

It should be that in the work also pointed out Rafinesque same accepted a restricted Boletus L. the differences of which with Agaricus Rafin. are not well stated:

L. Touchwood. with have "BOLETUS, Fungi pores beneath; we nearly 200 species: those with cells G. Phorima Donk in Persoonia beneath are my [cf. 1: 254. i960]; Polyporus has a central stem, Dedalea [!] a labyrinth beneath, Fistulina hollow tubes beneath. The true Boletus are sessile, equivalent to Agaricus to make tinder and styptic lint. A. cinnabarinus dies red. B. suberosus... B. igniarius and B. fomentarius... B. marginatus. B. odoratus and B. suaveolens...

The B. laricis. .." cit. —Rafinesque (op. p. 201).

STATUS. Impriorable on account of the earlier homonym Agaricus L. per Fr.

(1821).

Asterostromella Hohn. & L.—'Thelephoraceae' (see Donk in Taxon 6: 20. 1957 &

Part XIII, in press).

Ad Boletus S. F. Gray. — The name Boletus L. was also used in a strongly emended and reduced sense by Rafinesque (Medic. Fl. N. Amer. 201. 1830). His use of the

be considered of name may a mere monadelphous homonym Boletus S. F. Gray with which it would to For from seem roughly agree. an excerpt Rafinesque's his above account on genus, see under Agaricus [Tourn.] Rafin. Donk: Generic names of Polyporaceae 203

Ad Boudiera Lâzaro. — W. B. Cooke (in Lloydia 22: 174. i960) and Donk (in

which Cooke cites “B. connata Persoonia 1: 191. i960) list the same type, as (Batr.)" and Donk as “Polyporus connatus Weinm., not Polyporus connatus Schw." The latter author remarked further, "If Lazaro correctly interpreted Polyporus connatus = P.

Fr. which I am not sure), then Oxyporus (Bourd. & Donk is populinus (of yet G.) ...

Cooke's conclusion in this is variance since he a typonym". regard widely at states of Coltricia S. that Boudiera Lazaro is, "Possibly a synonym F. Gray." I would

confused Lazaro's with the unrelated conclude that he type species completely

= Coltricia connata S. F. Gray = Boletus perennis L. Polyporus perennis L. per Fr.

Bond. Donk in Taxon Byssocorticium & Sing, ex Sing.—'Thelephoraceae' (see

6: 23. 1957).

Caloporia P. Karst. and

Caloporus P. Karst.—See "Additions and corrections to Parts I-IX" ('Meru-

liaceae').

Cristella Pat.—'Thelephoraceae' (see Donk in Taxon 6: 68. 1957).

— that Ad Daedalea Pers. per Fr. As stated, Quelet (1876) remarked he considered

Fr. ofLenzites but he the first Daedalea guercina (L.) per a species Fr., was not actually

to make the combinationL. quercina: this was done before 1886 by Karsten [in Bidr.

Kann. Finl. Nat. Folk 37: 54. 1882 ("Quel.")].

Ad Daedaloides Lazaro. — VARIANT SPELLING: “Daedaleoides”; W. B. Cooke in

Lloydia 22: 179. 1959.

Ad Echinodontium Ell. Ev. in Bull. bot. CI. 27 Feb. & Torrey : 49. 1900 (corrected

reference). — Add under 'TYPONYMS': See also under Hydnophysa P. Henn., additional

remark inserted below. — The genus was recently excluded fromthePolyporaceae and

of EchinodontiaceaeDonk in Persoonia madethe typegenus a newfamily, ( 1:405.1961).

Ad Elmeria Bres. & Elmerina Bres. —- Originally W. B. Cooke listed Poria setulosa

of both Elmeria and Elmerina. More Cooke P. Henn. as type species recently (W. B.

in Lloydia 22: 180. i960) he partly returned on this and gave Polyporus vespaceus

Pers. as ofElmeria but retained Poria setulosa for Elmerina. By his remark type species ,

"Neither cited with Elmeria is mentioned under Elmerina, species except by impli- considered cation", one is forced to conclude that he Poria setulosa the only original

species of the generic name, because it was the only species Bresadola dealt with separately when introducing Elmerina. In fact, he makes it quite clear that he

regards Elmeria Bres. (1912, not 191 1 as Cooke states) and Elmerina Bres. as two

distinct genera, the first "being a segregate of Hexagona, the other of Poria”. In

addition, he does not consider Elmeria Bres. a homonym (orthographic variant) of

Elmera Rydb. (1905; Saxifragaceae) and hence emphasizes that Elmeria Bres. is

"valid and usable". 204 Persoonia Vol. 2, Part 2, 1962

the of Elmeria As to typification Bres., Polyporus vespaceus ("the better known"

of the two original species) should not be accepted as long as the inadequacy of the

earlier choice, Hexagona cladophora Berk., has not been demonstrated.

conclusion that Cooke's surprising we are dealing in this case with two different

be unnerved: Elmerina its valid reference genera can easily owes publication to a

to the earlier published Elmeria Bres. (there is no accompanying generic description)

of and hence is a pure isonym that name, and its original species as well as its type

coincide with those of the If would completely basionym. one interpret Elmerina as

it would be because there a new monotypic genus not validly published were no

accompanying descriptions, not even a descriptio generico-specifica, and because

Poria its only species ( setulosa) was not a new one.

If far Elmera and Elmeria one wants to go so as to accept Rydb. Bres. as non-

then it should be remembered that Bresadola's is homonymous names, name

of Elmeria Ridl. impriorable (illegitimate) on account (1909; Zingiberaceae).

Ad Favolaschia (Pat.) Pat. apud Pat. & Lagerh. — W. B. Cooke (in Lloydia 22:

" 181. i960) admits two genera Favolaschia, one of which is Favolaschia Pat. in

The of ' Morat [!] Journ. Bot. 1887: 231. 1887". correct citation this name is Laschia sect. Favolaschia Pat. in J. Bot. (ed. Morot), Paris 1: 231. 1887'. Why it should be

typified by Laschia auriscalpium Mont, is not clear to me.

Ad (Fr.) Fr. — I have been unable to verify W. B. Cooke's statement that

"Cunningham has chosen Fomes salicinus (Fr.) Kickx as the type of the genus Fomes

Kickx". As previously indicated, I am aware that Cunningham chose Polyporus

and in addition I that he in Trans, igniarius, may point out (Cunningham roy.

Soc. New Zeal. 82: even remarked: “F. salicinus and F. as the 895. 1955) igniarius ... former has not been proposed as a type it may be disregarded further".

stated that he had chosen Fomes of Fomes Cooke also previously igniarius as type

Kickx. I have been unable in he to verify this; any case wrote on previous

" occasions that Fomes Kickx" was "Based on Boletusfomentarius L."

" Ad Fomitiporia Murrill. — VARIANT SPELLING: Formitiporia W. B. Cooke in

Lloydia 22: 182. i960.—Evidently a misprint.

Ad Gloeophyllum P. Karst. — The authors' citation of the generic name should read '(P. Karst.) P. Karst.'

Add: BASIONYM: Lenzites subgen. Gloeophyllum P. Karst. in Acta Soc. Fauna Fl. fenn. 2 1881.—Introduced in entitled fennici" (1): 15. a paper "Hymenomycetes with three species in this order: Lenzites sepiaria (Wulf. per Fr.) Fr., L. abietinus

— Korsikov (Bull, per Fr.) Fr., and L. septentrionalis P. Karst. HOMONYM: Gloeophyllum

( 1 9535 Protococcineae, Chlorophyta; lacking Latin description).

Gyrophana Pat.—'Meruliaceae' (see Donk in 28: 9. 1958). Donk: Generic names of Polyporaceae 205

Pat.—'Meruliaceae' Donk Gyrophora (see in Fungus 28: 10. 1958).

Ad Bond. — Haploporus & Sing, ex Sing. Replace the given account by the two following.

Haploporus Bond. & Sing, ex Sing, in Mycologia 36: 66, 68. 1944. — ETYMOLOGY:

Gender: À7TX6OÇ simple; Ttôpoç pore. m. —TYPE SPECIES (by original designation):

Trametes odora Fr. Nikol. and Bond. & (Sommerf.: Fr.) sensu Sing.—According to

Bondartsev (Trutov. Griby 300. 1953) this is Fomitopsis odoratissima Bond. —

Bond. PROTONYM: Haploporus & Sing, in Ann. mycol., Berl. 39: 60. 1941.—Not

Latin Two mentioned validly published: no description. species were thus: "Typ:

H. odorus (Fr.) B.-S. Ferner: H. Ljubarskyi (Pil.) B.-S." — REMARK. When Singer

the he indicated (I.e.) validly published generic name as its type: “H. odorus (Fr.)

the when the B.-S.", same species given as type protonym was published. When

Bondartsev (see below) validly published the name at a later date (without reference

he the other of the to Singer's publication) appointed one two original species, viz.

Trametes in this later — ljubarskyi Pilat, way creating a homonym. HOMONYM:

Bond. Haploporus 1953 ('Polyporaceae').

Haploporus Bond., Trutov. Griby 47, 523. 1953. — ETYMOLOGY:

Gender: — simple;7t6poi;, pore. m. TYPE SPECIES (by original designation): Trametes

— Pildt. REMARKS. See also under — When ljubarskyi preceeding name. Bondartsev,

of valid of Bond. independently Singer's publication Haploporus & Sing., took up the latter he excluded the when the latter name ("g.n."), type (indicated was

and which had also been indicated under the published by Singer) name Fomitopsis Bond, and odoratissima proceeded to appoint as type the other one of the two

included Trametes originally species ( ljubarskyi) thus creating a later homonym.

This generic name should be known as Haploporus 'Bond.' rather than as 'Bond. &

Sing, ex Bond.' The supposition that Bondartsev had identified the two original

species appeared quite erroneously (Donk in Persoonia 1: 222. i960). — HOMONYM:

Bond. & — STATUS. Haploporus Sing, ex Sing. (1944), q.v. Impriorable on account of the earlier homonym.

A. Moll. — Ad Henningsia The name was first validly published in Bot. Mitth.

8: I this Tropen 44. 1895. qualified use as a nomen nudum but now have to reconsider this view. Moller wrote: "In Henningsia geminella nov. gen. et nov. spec., einem Typus der Polyporeen, werden wir eine Form antreffen, welche regelmassig

einen verhaltnissmassig hochorganisirten Thelephoreenzustand durchlauft, ehe die

Rohren des hoher entwickelten Fruchtkorpers in die Erscheinung treten."

this sufficient Technically represents description to assure valid publication of both

the generic and the specific name.

Hydnochaete Peck. —'Hydnaceae' (see Donk in Taxon 5: 96. 1956).

Hydnochaetella Sacc.—'Hydnaceae' (see Donk in Taxon 5: 96. 1956).

205 Part 1962 206 Persoonia Vol. 2, 2,

— Imazeki Bot Ad Hydnophysa P. Henn. Add under 'TYPE SPECIES': (in J. Japan.

concluded that and Hydnofomes tsugicola were 11: 519. 1935)

different, although congeneric species.

— 22: 186. listed Ad Hydnoporia Murrill. W. B. Cooke (in Lloydia i960) as type: Sistotrema cinnamomeus Fr.)". “ squalidum Fr. (Synonym: fuscescens Schw., Irpex Fr. 1: 1821) is certainly different This is an error: Hydnum squalidum (Syst. mycol. 420. Cooke relied Fries 1: from Sistotrema fuscescens Schw. Presumably on (Elench. 139. under squalidum. 1828) who included Schweinitz's species as variety p. Hydnum

Ad Inodermus Quel. — Add the following at the end of the discussion on "TYPIFIC- introduction of this ATION": It should be pointed out that the year following the and listed Patouillard Eur. accepted it as "Especes prin- genus (Hym. 143. 1887) I. I. without mention ofPolyporus radiatus cipales: I. hispidus, cuticularis, rheades, etc.",

in this connection or under other generic name, however. (Sow.) per Fr. any

— Patouillard's emendation Ad Inonotus P. Karst. Add the following REMARK.

of the to a ofwhich he merely cited as "Especes (Hym. Eur. 140. 1887) genus group be since the principales: I. nidulans, etc." must qualified a downright misapplication

not Karsten never considered it typical of species mentioned was an original one. P. Karst. it. Inonotus and already in 1881 he based Hapalopilus on

W. B. Cooke in Ad Irpicochaete J. Rick. — VARIANT SPELLING: “Irpiciochaete ”; unintentional Lloydia 22: 187. i960. —Presumably an error.

at end: When Patouillard — Add under the Ad Melanopus Pat. 'TYPIFIGATION' Berk, decided to Polyporus scopulosus (in Ann. Crypt, exot 1: 8. 1928), incorporate diviser he remarked: "On est done amene a ce into the genus Melanopus,

ainsi suit: i° Carnosi: M. M. radicatus. / 2° Lenti: dernier genre qu'il / squamosus, 0 M. a mince). / Lignosi: M. varius et analogues (serie typique, chapeau 3

This shows that Patouillard himself did not regard Polyporus scopulosus (. . .)." of the His "serie contained Fr. as typical typique" squamosus (Huds.) per genus.

which also covers Polyporus varius (Pers.) per Fr., "et analogues", presumably Patouillard considered the latter species Polyporus melanopus (Pers.) per Fr.; perhaps

with P. varius. synonymous

Merulius S. F. See Donk Merulius Haller (non Merulius Fr.), Merulius Fr., Gray.

under Merulius Fr. and Merulius [Haller] St.-Am. See in Fungus 28: 10, 11. 1958 also Part XIII of the present series (in press).

after the O.K. — Add under 'VALID PUBLICATION', Ad Microporus P. Beauv. per remark concerning Hariot, the following paragraph. Patouillard the name definitely was Perhaps the first author to accept generic

He did not mention it [in Ann. Jard. bot., Buitenzorg (Suppl. 1): in. 1897]. Donk: Generic names of Polyporaceae 207

separately but used it exclusively as the generic appellation in three specific

combinations; it was not validly published by him on that occasion by the lack of

a generic description or a valid reference.

Ad Mucronoporus Ell. & Ev. — Add to TYPIFICATION the following note: If no

previous indications of type species had occurred, one would not hesitate to select

Polyporus tomentosus: it was the only species fully described and illustrated (pi. 8).

Of all other listed in added species (eleven number) no descriptions were except

some details of the setae. First species, Polyporus circinatus, last species, Polyporus

balansae. Of these two, Murrill (1903) selected the former and W. B. Cooke (1940)

the latter. This later indication may perhaps be explained by a remark the authors

of the generic name made in the introductory paragraph: "The only described

this character the inner surface of the studded species having [viz. having pores

with reddish-brown spines exactly as in the hymenium of ], , so far as

of which Saccardo remarks that we know, is Polystictus balansae, Speg., (in Syll.) it

well be the of this does might type a new genus ('facile novum genus')." However,

not imply that it must also be considered type of the generic name Mucronoporus.

Myxomyces Mont, in Ann. Sci. nat. (Bot.) IV 1: 137. 1854 (incidental mention).

— its When publishing Laschia auriscalpium Mont., author mentioned a generic

for it follows: "La structure est d'ailleurs si d'abord name as differente, que j'avais

dte tente d'en faire un nouveau genre sous le nom de Myxomyces....” However,

he did this it not definitely accept name and, hence, was not validly published

even as an alternative name. Laschia auriscalpium will be found mentioned in

connection with Favolaschia, q.v.

Ad Ochroporus J. Schroet. — TYPIFICATION. On the previous occasion I left the

undecidedbetween choice of the type species Polyporus contiguus (Pers.) per Fr. and

P. Fr. If the Phellinus is taken in the broad of igniarius (L.) per genus Quel, sense Bourdot & Galzin (Hym. France 613. 1928), inclusive of resupinate species, then

with either becomes ofPhellinus. Ifthe Ochroporus species as type a synonym resupinate

excluded with becomes the species are then, Polyporus contiguus as type, Ochroporus

for correct name the genus which Cunningham (in Bull. Dept. sci. ind. Res., PI.

Dis. Div. No. and other authors have called Murrill 73: 1. 1948) Fuscoporia (1907); if P. igniarius is to be preferred, Ochroporus remains a synonym of Phellinus.

ifin the future it Phellinus Bourd. Moreover, appears necessary to split up sensu &

G. into smaller genera and at the same time one wants to retain Polyporus rubriporus

Quel, as its type species, then presumably Ochroporus might be a convenient name for The be considered for the a genus typified by Polyporus igniarius. next name to

P. igniarius group would be Scindalma [Hill] O.K. (1898) based on a somewhat dubious form of that Next in cushion-shaped (resupinate) species or group. suc- cession would perhaps be Pseudofomes Lazaro (1916), but in this case, too, some degree of diversity in opinion on the correct taxonomic interpretation of the type species might be expected. Persoonia 208 Vol. 2, Part 2, 1962

After a renewed careful examination of the question, I now believe that P.

of igniarius may be retained as type species Ochroporus, and P. contiguus, rejected, for

the The "Substanz der following reasons. original description reads, Fruchtkorper braun. Sporenpulver weiss; Membran der Sporen farblos. Die iibrigen Charactere

dieselbe wie bei Schroeter mentioned neither the colour of the Polyporus.” spore of the for in fact print nor spores Polyporus contiguus; nothing is said of either in

the description of that species. Also, it is not explicitly mentioned that the context

was brown. In contrast, the description of Polyporus igniarius states: "Substanz,

innen rostbraun" and of the "... Membran farblos .". It thus spores, . . may

be assumed that P. contiguus was placed in Ochroporus by implication rather than by

of certain essential and that for this exact knowledge generic characters, reason, suitable These considerations leave it is not a lectotype. P. igniarius as the preferable

type species.

Ad Pelloporus Quel. — Add following the first paragraph under "TYPIFICATION":

Patouillard Eur. took after (Hym. 143. 1887) up Quelet's genus immediately Quelet

had introduced it, listing as "Especes principales: P. perennis, P. Montagnei, P. fimbriatus, etc."

— left Ad Phaeoporus J. Schroet. I the choice ofthe type species undecided between

Fr. and P. cuticularius Fr. it Polyporus obliquus (Pers.) per (Bull.) per Recently became

to make and I P. cuticularis because it is the necessary a decision, now prefer species

which agrees best with the generic description. The latter contains, inter alia,

kurzen "Conidien auf der Oberflache der Fruchtkorper an Hyphen abgeschniirt;

Membran braun." The only species for which Schroeter described conidia is P.

cuticularis: "Auf der Oberflache werden an den jungen Fruchtkorpern oft elliptische

Conidien mit glatter brauner Membran abgeschniirt."

Phlebiella P. Karst. Donk in Taxon 6: 108. & —'Thelephoraceae' (see 1957

Part XIII, in press).

Ad Phyllodontia P. Karst. — W. B. Cooke (in Lloydia 22: 194. i960) called the

' “P. Karst." This is for P. Karst.' type magnus an error Phyllodontia magnusii

Phylloporus Quel.—Boletaceae (see Donk in Reinwartia 3: 297. 1955).

Ad Polystictus Fr. — Insert the following paragraphs immediately after the word

' 'TYPIFICATION''.

Fries (in K. svenska Vet.-Akad. Handl. 1848: 127) had conceived the taxon

fused already before he decided to treat it as a distinct genus: originally he it with

Trametes Fr.:

“Trametes editam hoc valde hue .... Post Synopsin Hymenomycetum genus dilatavimus, referentes omnes species suberosas 1. lignosas, nec instar Polypori genuini e camosolentas haud stratosis in omnibus formata licet fibrosas, poris quibus re ipsa trama a pileo adest,

in diversis minus — hoc speciebus plus distincta appareat. Ad genus, quod majorem partem

exoticorum sibi Polypororum vindicat. . .." Donk: Generic names of Polyporaceae 209

"Ad stirpem Tr. perennis pertinent sequentes species sub Polyporo descriptae: a) poris amplis radicatus connatus trama crassa: P. maximus, Schweinizii, rufescens, (Schwein.!) (Schw.); b) poris

P. oblectans trama . minutis, tenui: Tr. circinatus, tomentosus, bulbipes (= Be[r]k.? . .) Cladonia

Berkl. etc

Trametum sacer. "Alteram mesopodium stirpem representat Polyporus ., cujus plurimas

habemus — series clare quoque species. Utraque haec a Polyporis mesopodibus genuinis differt;

et sub singula Trametum tribu redeunt cum his analogae species. Tantum proba distinctione

Trametum facilem licit et Polyporum proponere specierum conspectum."

These remarks tend to show that the later genus Polystictus started with the

of in the first conception a stirps typified by Polyporus perennis (L.) per Fr., place,

and a stirps typified by P. sacer Afz. ex Fr.

Soc. Porodon Fr., Syst. mycol. 1: 459. 1821 (nomen nudum); in Nova Acta

— When back the Sci. upsal. Ill 1: 92. 1851 (nomen nudum). looking on Hymeno-

in brief of the Fries introduced this mycetes a survey genera, generic name as a

nudum: "POLYPORUS abiens in = Porodon. Pers. nomen Hydnum (Sistotremat. sp.

Daedalea It is clear which he had in but it have sp. Mihi.)". not species mind, might

been, for instance, Daedalea biennis (Bull.) per Fr., which he accepted on the basis

of its original account (Bulliard, Champ. France pi. 449 f. 1. 1789; "v.i."). —

I know of only one other mention of the name (cited above): when discussing

Polystictus versatilis (Berk.) Fr., Fries remarked about it: "Forsan P. venusto proprior

referendus." vel ad novum genus Porodon (typo P. Acanthoide) No generic description

the acanthoides was given and name only provisionally accepted. Polyporus (Bull, per

Fr. Fr. is form of biennis Merat) sensu (Epicr. 448. 1838) a Polyporus (Bull, per Fr.)

Fr. as was pointed out by O. Fidalgo (in Bull. Torrey bot. CI. 86: 134. 1959), and

closely related to (if not conspecific with) Polyporus distortus (Schw.) Steud.: Fr.,

the of the Murrill. type species name Abortiporus

Corda. Part XII ofthe in Ptychogaster —Deuteromycetes (see present series, press).

" Ad Rigidoporus Murrill. — VARIANT SPELLING: Rigidiiporus W. B. Cooke in

Lloydia 22: 199. i960. —Presumably an unintentional error.

Rodwaya H. & P. Syd.—Boletaceae (see Donk in Reinwardtia 3: 299. 1955).

' Ad Trametes Fr. — The type species should be cited as Polyporus suaveolens (L.) per Fr. sensu Fr.' Eriksson [in Symb. bot. upsal. 16 (1): 140-146 fs. 44, 45. 1958]

has shown that the original Boletus suaveolens L. must be equated with Polyporus odorus Sommerf.: Fr. Trametes odorata Fr. while Fries's = (Sommerf.) interpretation of with Trametes suaveolens. it agrees what is now currently called

Vararia P. Karst.—'Thelephoraceae' (see Donk in Taxon 6: 121. 1957).

Ad Xanthochrous Pat. — Add under "TYPIFICATION": Gosselin (in Farlowia 1:

Xanthochrous 526. 1944) remarked that, "In 1900, Patouillard made a new genus based P. circinatus. his on He described the setae as being straight. Apparently Vol. Part 210 Persoonia 2, 2, 1962

X. circinnatus is P[olyporus] tomentosus Fr." This statement is misleading in several

is indication that Patouillard 'based' that respects: there no the name on species.

In both the original account (1897) and that of 1900 (Essai taxon. Hym. 100) he listed as examples, inter alia, Polyporus tomentosus Fr. as well as P. circinatus (Fr.) Fr.,

f without adding descriptions. However, in ( 56: he depicted a straight seta 1900 . 4) for P. circinatus, but this may be an error and a seta of this species is perhaps depicted in figure 56: 3 as "Cystide de X. vulpinus (Fr.)".