Correspondence of Charles Peck and G. W. Clinton
Edited by P. M. Eckel
Res Botanica
Missouri Botanical Garden

February 25, 2011


Return to home

The Correspondence of

Charles Peck (1833-1917) and

George William Clinton (1807 1885)

 

1871

 


 

Vol. 7 (134) [E 97]

 

Albany, Jan. 17th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The specimen inclosed in yours of the 14th seems to me to be the buds of the plant, emerging just above the scar of the old leaf.

 

Your point in relation to "striaepes" is well taken. To suppose a stem to be made up of stiae alone is absurd. I therefore enclose a new label which I think expresses the idea intended a little better. In reference to "ryssoleum" I have looked over Tuckerman's letters and find he wrote it plainly with a "y". I do not find it in print and it is possible he like other people may make mistakes sometimes

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 Received Jan. 18


 

Vol. 7 (135) [E 96]

 

Albany, Jan. 18th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Seeing numbers on Mr. Hankenson's specimens I jumped to the conclusion that you wished me to send names to him, which I have done. I did not think to mention the fact to you when here. No. 29 contains a little Bryum argenteum and more of a sterile moss which I do not satisfactorily recognise. The fungus (18) also is doubtful.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 Received Jan. 19

 


 

Vol. 7 (137) [E 94]

 

Albany, Jan. 20th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

No. 1 Stereum albobadium Schw.

2 I am disposed to think this a small sterile form of Riccia crystallina L., at least it comes nearer that than anything I find described, but nothing is said in the description of that species of the abundant radiculose cells of the under surface. If fertile specimens could be obtained they might warrant making a new species, but with these along I preper to hold to the above opinion.

 

3 As he has it, R. lutescens Schw.

4 Polyporus abietinus Fr.

 

I inclose Dr. Curtis's letter to me in answer to an inquiry I made of him at the request of Prof. Hall in relation to the extent and price of his Herbarium. Prof. Hall wishes you to see it, and I therefore send it. Dr. C. evidently puts a higher estimate on his Herbarium than on his duplicates.

 

I have written to the editor of the Naturalist in reference to the publication of the new species of fungi. They decline to publish on the ground that they must make the Naturalist popular and they do not want to introduce technical terms. They offer to publish in the Proceedings of the Essex Inst. but I see nothing to be gained by that unless it be a little time, for the circulation of their Proceedings is scarcely more extended probably than that of the Regents Report. I would sooner have them published in the Proceedings of the Albany Inst. than the Essex.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Jan. 22

 

[Note the problem with absence of professional journals here]


 

Vol. 7 (146) [E 85]

 

Albany, Feb. 4th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The editors of the American Journals also decline to publish the descriptions of fungi giving as reasons that their pages are already filled for some months ahead and that they have reason to believe that they will have an abundance of articles more interesting than mere "dry descriptions". The first reason to my mind is satisfactory and sufficient, but I could wish they had omitted the second, for though the description of a new species of toadstoo may be dry to them, it certainly would not be to me nor to any one else interested in this branch of Botany and it does not look well for a paper professedly devoted, among other things, to the interests of Botany to exclude all descriptions of new species of plants on the ground of dryness, unless it is for the interest of the science that no more descriptions should be published.

 

They suggest that I try the Acad. Nat. Sci. of Philadelphia or the Philosophical Society of that city.

 

Do you think it worthwhile to do so? I fear nothing would be gained by it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 5 & answered 6th


 

 

Vol. 7 (147) [E 84]

 

Albany, Feb. 7th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I am not at all fearfull of losing priority of name for the new species of fungi even if they await the regular issue of the Cab. Rep. I shall hope that they will be issued in the future with less delay. It is my purpose to put a few illustrations in the next (24th) with Chrome lithograph as an experiment. If satisfactory it will save some delay in coloring by hand.

 

I have for some time been cherishing the idea of a work on the Fungi of New York and have been slowly accumulating knowledge and materials. I had however been cherishing the idea of an elementary Manual first without knowing exactly how it was to be published. I certainly shall hope in time to accomplish what you suggest.

 

Since you were here I have been mounting specimens of last seasons collecting and were it not for the preparation of some lectures I should soon be ready to attack your pile of specimens, many of which I have never reported. I do not know how I ever came to write "Ae. Daphnoideum" for certainly I know of no such species. Ae. hydnoideum B. & C. is the species that inhabits leaves of Dirca. I do not find however that they have ever published a description of it, it being one of their miserable Cabinet names so far as I know.

 

Your Helvella is H. crispa Fr. It came to me so badly broken that I must give you another in place of it. I think you did send me Cordiceps militaris Ehrh. but I can not just now put my hand on it. I have never found it except on some dead insect or rather pupa.

 

I am glad you sent that Carex to Prof. Gray and hope he will give us his views of it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 8


 

Vol. 7 (149) [E 82]

 

Albany, Wednesday morning [1871]

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Yours of Feb. 6 & 7 are received. I insert the subgenera of the Agarici in your list

xA. (Mycena) iocephalus B. & C.

xA. (Omphalia) Pleurotus striatulus Pers.

xA. (Psilocybe) spadiceus Schaeff.

 A. (Galera) Sphagnorum Pers.

xA. (Lepiota) aspratus Berk.

 

Probably I shall not be able to make much out of those Switzerland Fungi, especially if they are mostly fleshy species, still I generally get a few new ideas in looking over a set of specimens and I make it a rule never to reject any opportunity of acquiring any new ideas concerning these plants. If you are so disposed you may send them on.

 

I think the Xylaria to be X. Hypoxylon var. pedata Fr.

 

His description is thus:

" [gama] pedata, glabra, nigra, clavula subdiscreta pedato-incisa. Fries V. A. H. [& C.?] Stipes clavulam superat. Cum vulgari".

 

Mr. Gerard's name is W. R. Gerard. He is still in Poughkeepsie and quite interested in fungi.

 

I have recently ordered Mr. M. C. Cooke's "Handbook of British Fungi" a new work of which Part I is just out. He purposes in it to give descriptions of all British fungi now known, and illustrations of all the principal genera. I think it may be a good thing and when I get my Part I if it sustains my expectations and is worth the money (whole cost including both parts and postage $5.75) I will let you know.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 9


 

Vol. 7 (158) [E 72]

 

Albany, Feb. 14th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Durkee & Jenkins, whose card I inclose, have a copy of Torreys Flora of N.Y., colored plates, which they will sell separately for $20, $10 a Vol.

 

Dr. Stevens has a part set, 6 Vols. including the Botany which he will sell for $36. Only secondhand copies can be had, but I am told that sometimes they may be had at a lower rate than D. & J. ask. These are the only ones I now know of for sale.

 

I am to day shut up in the house with a very badly inflamed eye. As soon as I get out again I will inquire concerning Gray's Bot. with mosses, look up some fruiting Riccia for you, &c. I do not see now how I can do anything with the Arizona mosses at present. Until that course of lectures is over all my time will be needed to quit myself of my duties there, for I find it no small matter to "popularize" a lucture on Nat. Hist., get up the necessary diagrams etc.

 

Your specimens of fungi mentioned are put away with the rest in a pile just as they were sent to  me and I can not probably find them without overhauling many parcels; as soon as I can get at it I will endeavor to find them or others in place of them for you. The Rhizomorpha subcorticulis is the one you labeled "Roots I suppose" or something to that effect. It grows under bark of old stumps and logs and looks like black anastomozing roots. It is thought by some to be only a state of some Hypoxylon.

 

 Erineum roseum is the rosy somewhat lineated Erineum that occupies the upper surface of birch leaves. Sphaeria longissima grows on dead stems of Chenopodium forming long somewhat rectangular patches.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 15


 

Vol. 7 (159) [E 71]

 

Albany, Feb. 15th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

It seems Prof. Gray "swears by Olney" in reference to the Carex and Olney simply repeats with emphasis the decision he gave me last summer. It is now my turn to say that I do not think the carex is C. capillaris; at least the C. capillaris described in our botanies. I base my opinion chiefly upon the fact that the perigynia are 2-nerved whereas in our descriptions of C. capillaris it is said they are nerveless, - and this according to Olney himself is good for confirming specific characters. Prof. Wood in his Addenda to the Botanist and Florist emphasises this character, and also says the leaves are long. In Cowles' Carex they are not half the length of the culm, and hence, comparatively speaking, could not be called long. The scale too in Cowles Carex is broadly obovate, not "ovate" as some of them have it in description. I may or may not deserve the name of "precise botanist" but the simple admission of an elongated culm as the only point of difference between this Carex and C. capillaris of our botanies (I have no authenticated specimens and must go by the description) does not satisfy me. To overlook such discrepancies as I have pointed out I fear would give me the name of "Loose botanist." The whole thing reduces itself to this, either our descriptions of C. capillaris are singularly erroneous or else Mr. Olney's determination is. Which shall we take? Out of deference to superior authority and judgement I will do as you say, either make it C. capillaris var. or leave it C. Cowlesii. Names do not alter the nature of things. I hope Mr. Cowles will find us an abundance of specimens in good condition and such as may remove the doubts from my mind at least.

 

I forgot in my last to say that I do not know to whom we may look for a work on our Algae. Mr. Wood of Philadelphia wrote me some time ago that he had ready for publication a Monograph of our fresh water species, but did not tell me when or where it would be published. This is the nearest thing I know of to such a work as you mention.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. The package of fungi is at hand but owing to the condition of my eye I have not yet looked at them.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Feb. 16


 

Vol. 7 (165) [E 63]

 

Albany, Feb. 18th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The package is received - also the specimen of Carex capillaris.

 

My eye is still much inflamed and the doctor forbids me using the well one, but a single glance at the Carex banishes all doubts. If this be C. capillaris then Cowles's plant can be nothing more than a form of it; but I would like to know why in the name of common sense, both Gray and Wood pronounce the perigynia nerveless! The nerves in this are if anything more distinct than in Cowles'.

 

I have but one good eye but with that alone they are plainly perceptible. Besides, the very marked character of the upper fertile spike surpassing the sterile one is overlooked in the descriptions and the scales are misrepresented. If all descriptions belied the species as much as those of C. capillaris seem to do from what I now see, I fear I should be guilty of making many synonyms. I thank you very much for sending me this specimen so authoritatively labeled. Olney is a bully boy, and no wonder Gray referred the Carex to him. I hope next time Prof. Gray writes a description of C. capillaris or its section he will have more nerve about him than to write nerveless and thus mislead poor unfortunates who depend on his descriptions for much of their knowledge.

 

My physician would scold me if he knew I was writing and so must stop. I shall not be able to examine the specimens till my eye gets better. Fortunately it is not the one I use with the microscope that is affected. If it were I should be half crazy.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 20

 


 

Vol. 7 (171) [E 56 and E 57 - two sheets]

 

Albany, Feb. 27th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

My eye is much better and I trust I shall soon be over this bad place. I have ventured to use it a little to day, but I feel that I must exercise a little care at first. The physician attributes the trouble to taking cold which settled in that eye - it having been a defective one for a long time.

 

The moss is as you suppose - Leptodon trichomitrium - a beautiful species according to my notion.

 

Prof. Wood wrote to me some time ago that he purposed issuing a new edition of his "Botanist and Florist", & to add thereto the Grasses, Sedges and Mosses. He asked me for aid in specimens of mosses which I have already given him. You are right in supposing my commercial ability to be nothing but I scarcely know what to say about your suggestion of a joint authorship. I am perfectly willing to aid him all I can in any way that does not interfere with my duties in my present position. I am paid for my services there and do not feel like putting myself under obligations to do work which might interfere with those duties.

 

I have to day made inquiry concering the edition of Gray's Manual with the Mosses. I do not find it on hand here, but they say the price is $3.75. I presume it can be had of the publishers for that, or of the Naturalist

Agency which I see advertises it at that price

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 2, answered 3d


 

Vol. 7 (177) [E 50]

 

Albany, Mar. 8th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I am at work again, though out of respect to my eye I do not venture to use the microscope any yet.

 

I have received a very unexpected communication from Prof. Wood in relation to the publication of his Manuscript on the mosses. I inclose his letter to you that you may give your opinion as to the propriety of its publication in the manner he proposes.

 

I have taken a look at your herbarium specimens of Carex capillaris and they confirm me in the idea that Mr. Olney is right in calling Cowles plant a large form of that species. It seems to be quite variable in its appearance, judging from your specimens. But I should scarcely think the one from Christiana, could be the same species as the rest.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 9


 

Vol. 7 (184) [E 43]

 

Albany, Mar. 15th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The little Aecidium is a pretty thing, but I do not find any description that meets it. It is possibly an undescribed species. I suspect there is really dimorphism in fungi and that Aecidium is one state of Puccinia, Uromyces etc. It would be well for us when finding any Aecidium in abundance, to mark the locality and later in the season visit it again and examine the same plants for these secondary or later forms. For example I have found Aecidium aroidatum on leaves of Arisaema triphyllum. Later in the season I find on those same plants an abundance of Uredo (Trichobasis) Ari-Virginici Schw. Oat leaves bearing Uredo rubigo I find are at the same time or a little later infected with Puccinia coronata and leaves of the morning glory (Calystegia sepium) affected with Trichobasis Polygonorum are in autumn found to bear Puccinia Convolvuli B. & C.If these later forms should be found to be derived from the earlier ones it would reduce our number of species greatly but the truth ought to be known and it may prove of great practical value to us in fighting our fungoid pests. At any rate the point is worth a little extra labor in investigating it. Mr. Mohr would do well to examine the Trifolium where he found the Aecidium, in a few weeks, to see if it bears any other fungus.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 16


 

Vol. 7 (185) [E 42]

 

Albany, 18th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

In order to be on the safe side, I hestitate to use my microscope yet, though my eye does not trouble me any now. I wish to give it a fair chance and so only send the names of such of your specimens as I readily recognize with the naked eye.

 

March 16

x9 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x10 Stereum purpureum Pers.

 

March 17

x4 Old stems of Stemonitis, either fusca or ferruginea

x5 Dothidea crystallophora B. & C. yet only a manuscript name.

x6 Rhizomorpha subcorticalis Pers. This is thought by some to be a state of some Hypoxylon.

x8 Jungermannia curvifolia (small red)

 x & Jungermannia Schraderi (larger red)

   & Some Hypnum

x18 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 19


 

 

Vol. 7 (187) [E 40]

 

Albany, 27th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have ventured to look at your specimens of Mar. 17 second lot, with the following results only.

x25 Massaria vomitoria B. & C. A manuscript name I suppose

x26 Dacrymyces stillatus Nees.

31 Polyporus abietinus Fr. (old)

32 Discosia Artocreas Fr.

x33 Rhizomorpha subcorticalis Pers.

x43 Cantharellus crispus Fr. (old)

 

of March 20

x1 I suspect is Septoria Phlyctaenoides B. & C. (Ms. name) but there are no spores.

 

x2 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode. This is now thought by some to be a form of Nectria cinnabarina

5 Sphaeria complanata Fr.

x8 Cladosporium herbarium Lk. (the green.) I make nothing of the rest.

 

If I wrote in my last as I suspect I did, Dothidea Maclurae, please substitute for "Maclurae" "crystallophora" B. & C. Sphaeopsis Maclurae grows on the Osage Orange also and I may have confused the specific name. I have no complete specimens of the Rubus but send some Elatine. I expect to "spout" on botany to night.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 28, 29th - wrote for No. 31


 

Vol. 7 (190) [E 36]

 

Albany, Mar. 31st, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 29

 

Forest Lawn,

A. The larger tubercles are Hypoxylon argillaceum Fr.

 

The small black ones are some Valsa probably V. Americana B. & C. but I am not certain, having no description of that species.

 

B seems to be Biatora rubella - a lichen

 

May joy and success attend your contemplated trip to Wisconsin

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 2


 

Vol. 7 (191) [E 35]

 

Albany, Apr. 4th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of Mar. 30th I can only make x4 & x8 to be Tubercularia vulgaris and x2 & x3 Phoma melaleucum B. & C. This last one is determined from comparison with specimens received from Dr. Curtis and is, I suppose, only a Cabinet or Manuscript name.

 

Mar. 31

x1 Sclerotium Orobanches Schw.

x2 Biatora viridescens Fr. (A lichen).

x3 Diatrype Cercidicola B. & C. according to Curtis' specimens. Probably another Cabinet name. Did you find it on the Cercis?

x4 Diachaena faginea Fr. (Poor)

x6 Biatora rubella (A lichen)

x8 Hysterium pulicare Fr. Probably - No spores.

 

The others are not recognised.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. Apr. 3d

x1 Dichaena faginea

x2 Valsa Americana

x3 Hypoxylon argillaceum so far as can be seen in the sterile state. I have never seen it fertile.

x4 Hypoxylon fragiforme. Old and coated with a blue mold which appears to be a Rhinotrichum. What species is a question.

x5 = 4

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Ap. 5


 

 

Vol. 7 (192) [E 34]

 

Albany, Apr. 10th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The fungus of Apr. 6th marked A (on cow dung) is Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R. I do not know if they have ever published a description of it - probably it is only a cabinet name, but one made public through Ravenel's Carolini Fungi Exsicc.

 

You may send on those Swiss fungi from Lesqx. if you choose and I will do as well with them as I can. I have looked through the Schaerer Coll. which came while I was laid up with a sore eye. I have been able to determine a few of them. These and your specimens of Carex capillaris are ready for you whenever you shall direct me what to do with them.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. Of Apr. 10th specimens I only recognize No. 5 which is Sphaeria Verbascicola Schw. (sterile)

 

Received Ap. 12


 

Vol. 7 (196) [E 30]

 

Albany, Apr. 22d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Yours of Apr. 20th contains (1) Pannaria lanuginosa Ach. - a lichen, and (2) Sphaeria coniformis Fr. - a fungus. A letter a fortnight ago contained two specimens which I could not determine and therefore it remained unanswered. The spring does open finely. I have rushed out a couple times and obtained a few good things. Do you remember that about a year ago you brought here a fungus growing on horn. I have been looking at it again and think it is Onygena equina Pers. In the recent fire which destroyed the printing establishment of Weed Parsons & Co. the 23d Cab. Report, which was well under way, was destroyed. This will delay its issue some time longer - a thing which I regret, but I trust it will be good when it does come.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 23


 

Vol. 7 (201) [E 25]

 

Albany, May 2d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The "very minute black dots" on leaves of Apr 30 appear to be some Sphaeria but I do not find any fructification hence am unable to determine them. On the beech leaves is some Discasia Artocreas and some old Erineum fagineum.

 

I received the "Swiss Fungi" and have detmined them as far as I could. Shall I return them by mail? What beautiful spring weather.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received May 4


 

 

Vol. 7 (209) [E 15]

 

Albany, May 17th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Your No 1 on leaves of Allium is Septoria viride-tingens Curtis.

 

The other things, on bark, I am unable to determine.

 

Two days ago I found a small quantity of Aecidium Calthae Grev. - the first time, so far as I know, that it has been found in this country.

 

I have for some time noticed that the tumors which produce the "black knot" (Sphaeria morbosa) at first produce a cropf of Cladosporium, a dark green mold. The other day I received a little pamphlet from M. C. Cooke, on "Polymorphic Fungi" in which it is stated that some botanists regard the very common Cladosporium herbarum as the early stage of Sphaeria herbarum. Here appears to be dimorphism in an unexpected quarter.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received May 19


 

Vol. 7 (212) [E 12]

 

Albany, May 23d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The moss from Willoughby Mt. is small Sphagnum cuspidatum.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. I yesterday found a new species of Ustilago on leaves of Erythronium Americanum

 

C. H. P.

 

Received May 24


 

Vol. 7 (213) [E 11]

 

Albany, May 26th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

No. 1, May 22d, is Puccinia Cryptotaenia Rk. - an unfortunate name as it is not confined to Cryptotaenis leaves. It may be another case of dimorphism as I see the remains of Aecidium Claytoniatum [sic] Schw. in your specimen

 

I find this Puccinia also follows the Aecidium in the Helderberg locality where I first found Ae. Claytoniatum.

 

No. 2 I make nothing of. No. 3 is a Perenospora near P. arborescens Berk. but I am not sure if it is that species. These moulds are difficult things for me to handle.

 

I shall remember Rubus neglectus for you. Intend to go to Sandlake next week and I will then look after flowering specimens.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. Dr. Howe brings me more fungi than I can determine. How I wish I knew all these things - a rash wish perhaps for then I should not have the pleasure of a first acquaintance with them - but it grieves me not to be able to communicate information when it is sought.

 

C. H. P.

 

[On margin - back] I have written to Mr. Cowles for more of that tall Carex capillaris.

 

[On margin - front] I send to day by Express the fungi etc. I have named such as I could and taken a part of such as seemed desirable to me and thank you for them. I have not been able to determine the Hepaticae and retain them for further examination.

 

Received May 30

 

[Just what did stay at Albany, and what stayed here?]


 

 

Vol. 7 (218) [E 6]

 

Albany, June 19th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The grasses are Festuca tenella Willd, Poa pratensis L. and one of the many forms of Panicum dichotomum L. - the early state.

 

No 1 June 14 I believe to be Aecidium elatinum A. & C. but the leaf is not altered as is said to be the case in the attacks of that species. I have no specimen with which to compare it but so far as I can judge by the figure and description if agrees well except in this mentioned exception. Perhaps this is due to the slightness of the attack as the fungus is figured as occupying the whole under surface of the leaf.

 

No. 2 is Ceratodon purpureus.

 

I obtained a few specimens of Rubus neglectus in flower in my trip to Sandlake.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received June 20


 

Vol. 7 (220) [E 4]

 

Albany, June 22d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the variety of Equisetum arvense. I had not seen it before.

 

Of June 20th

xNo.1 is what I call Polyporus Boucheanus Fr.

x2 Probably young Roestelia.

x3 No fungus - insect rascalities

4 Melanconium bicolor Nees.

x5 Aecidium Ranunculacearum DC.

Ae. Ranunculi Schw. I consider a different species - one occupying the whole under surface of the leaves of Ranunculus abortivus - not growing in definite spots.

x6 Aecidium Compositarum Mart.

x7 Here seems to be a muddling mixture of Cladosporium and Macrosporium.

Species doubtful.

 

I have none of No. 5 except that which you have sent. A few more specimens are desirable. Also of Ae. Allenii on leaves of Shepherdia if you should find it. We ought to have a specimen or two of Scirpus Clintonii.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received June 24


 

Vol. 7 (221) [E 3]

 

Albany, June 23d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I make the New Brunswick specimens to be as follows,

xx1 Exidia glandulosa

xx2 Hypocrea Richardsonii B. & M.

xx4 Erineum fagineum

xx7 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

x15 Frullania Grayana Mont. Liverwort.

x16 Frullania Eboracensis Lehm. Liverwort.

xx18 Stereum rugosum Fr.

xx19 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

xx20 Schizophyllum commune Fr.

xx25 Irpex Tulipiferae Schw.

xx31 Hypocrea Richardsonii B. & M.

x23 Hypoxylon fuscum (old)

xx26 Panus stypticus Fr.

xA Cantharellus crispus Fr.

 B Polyporus versicolor Fr.

D Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

xE Polyporus cinnabarinus Fr.

xG Irpex Tulipiferae Schw. (Young)

xI Polyporus versicolor Fr.

xJ Frullania Grayana Mort.

 

3, 24, C, H, & F are undetermined.

x30 A lichen - Baeomyces aeruginosus DC. (= Biatora icmadophila Fr.)

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. The specimen form Goat Island is Peziza coccinea

 

C. H. P.

 

Received June 25

 

[These are Fowler’s fungi; see Dec. 12th, 1871 below]


 

Vol. 7 (222) [E 2]

 

Albany, June 26th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

1 (a part returned,) I take to be a thin form of Merulius lacrymans Schum. - Did the gentleman notice any watery drops on it when fresh? That species is said to be "fleshy", this is membranaceous, but this single discrepancy may be due to its habitat.

 

June 23d Cayuga I[sland]

1 Aecidium Geranii DC.

2 No fungus - probably insects work.

3 Uredo Helianthi Schw. I suspect this is the early stage of Puccinia Helianthi Schw.

4 Aecidium Ranunculacearum. Yes send on some.

 

The others are dubious.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. I have found an excellent correspondent in M. C. Cooke, an ardent devotee of Mycology, a plain practical earnest worker, with whose aid I hope to put our microscopic species in their proper places, and to get a knowledge of European forms.

 

Received June 27

 

[Note Peck's punctuation is always inside the parentheses and quotation marks]


 

 

Vol. 7 (223) [E 1]

 

Albany, June 27th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Many thanks for Scirpus Clintonii, and Aecidium Ranunculacearum. The Equisetum does not agree well with E. arvense. It comes nearer E. palustre and if not that species is quite likely E. littorale as you suspect.

 

I have found the Hydrodictyon in the Hudson river where it is plenty enough. Elsewhere I have not noticed it.

 

xA The yellow dots are immature sporangia of the Erysiphoid plant.

xB Puccinia Cryptotaeniae Pk.

xC I do not recognize the Polyporus, probably there will be more of it developed from the "little knobs".

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received June 28


 

Vol. 8 (2) [H 225]

 

[no heading - 1871]

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of June 27th the only one in good condition is No. 7 =

Discosia Artocreas Fr.

 

xNo1 is some young Trichia.

x2 is onlny mycelium and not namable

x3 is infertile - probably some Hypoxylon

x4 Badly mashed and decomposing

x5 No fungus

x6 Too old, whatever it is

x7 Pressed out of shape and discolored so that I do not recognize it.

 

Of June 28th

 

Many thanks for Aecidium Allenii

x1 Tremella albida Hud.

x3 Boestelia lacerata Jul. [-sp.?]

x4 Boestelia but undeveloped

x5 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x7 Xylaria (too young)

99 Calicium subtile & some Hysterium

96 Hysterium

x10 Polyporus elegans Fr.

x11 Peziza coccinea Jacq.

x12 Stemonitis ferruginea Ehrh.

2 Hysterium

 

the others I do not recognize. M. C. Cooke proposes to revise our species of Hysterium and I await the revision before endeavoring to identify these. They seem to be in some confusion.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received July 1


 

Vol. 8 (4) [H 223]

 

Albany, July 6, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of June 29

[in margin in pencil - Clinton: not returned] 1 Peziza Persoonii Moug.

2 Unknown

x3 It is doubtful if the spots come to anything

x4 This is curious. Not knowing just where to place it I send one leaf to Cooke.

 

July 4th

1 Not a fungus

x2 Aecidium Panunculacearum DC.

x3 Puccinia Umbelliferarum DC. The leaf appears to be Osmorrhiza

x4 Puccinia Violarum Lk. The yellowish dots are Trichobasis Violarum Berk. but are only the early state of the Puccinia

x5 Polyporus abietinus Fr.

 

Th others are "incertae".

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received July 8


 

Vol. 8 (7) [H 220]

 

Albany, July 10th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I return the small Peziza on Equisetum which I take to be our American form of P. Persoonii although it does not fully meet the description of the European plant. I have sent a specimen to Cooke and hope he may be able to clear all doubts - in the mean time I call it P. Persoonii.

 

"B" June 26 I too hastily named Puccinia Cryptotaeniae. I think it is not on Cryptotaenia leaf but Osmorrhiza - at any rate it equals 3 July 4 and is P. Umbelliferarum. The spores differ from those of P. Cryptotaeniae in being more regular and not having a little umbo or protuberance at the apex, also in habit.

 

If you please, save some of No. 4 from June 29th. If Mr. Cooke should make anything of it I shall be glad of more.

 

I have no hesitation in affirming that this Peziza (inclosed) is P. coccinea Jacq. although wanting a stipe while the description calls for one, 1/2-1 in. long. I do not consider this character of specific value, neither slight differences or size or color unless supported by something else. Unfortunately I can not now put my hand on the smaller one (of June 28) though I remember seeing it at the time and had then no doubt of its being only a small growth of this species. Perhaps too certain for I was so confident I did not examine the spores as I should otherwise have done.

 

I will bear your request in mind when writing again to Cooke.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. Next week I intend to start out on a botanical trip up North.

 

Received July 12


 

Vol. 8 (17) [H 208]

 

Albany, Aug. 9th,   1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I yesterday returned and found your letter and package waiting for me.

 

July 15

x1 Puccinia Xanthis Schw.

x2 & 3 Lecythea epitea Lev.

x5 Helvella crispa Fr.

x6 Irpex cinnamomea Fr. var.

x8 Insect galls.

x10 Pistillaria Muscicola Fr. on Climacium Americanum Brid.

x12 Phlebia radiata Fr.

x14 Rhytisma Solidaginis Schw.

 

The others I am not prepared to decide upon.

 

x"A" is a fungus - a Uredo - species uncertain.

 

The works most desirable seem to me to be

 

On Fungi

Fries SystemaMucologicum 3 Vols. - Vols. 2 & 3 each in two Parts (and with this work should be his 1st & snd Elenchus.)

 

Fries Epicrisis or Synopsis Hymenomycetes 1 Vol.

 

Berkeley's Outlines of British Fungology

Cookes Handbook of British Fungi (This is a new work just completed.)

 

On Lichens

Acharius Synopsis Methodica Lichenum 1 Vol.

Fries Lichenographia Europea Reformata 1 Vol. and probably Nylander's work, but this I have not seen.

 

On Algae, Rabenhorsts work has been recommended to me but I have not yet seen it. Fries and Acharius are both in Latin - so probably are Nylander and Rabenhorst.

 

Concerning the fungus on Violet leaves which I sent to M. C. Cooke, he writes "I do not know what to make of it. Is it a Phacidium?"

 

So I am not the only one puzzled by it.

 

I had a terribly wet time in the Adirondacks and consequently but moderate success. I failed to f ind any more Aspidium fragrans but established the fact that Aspidium aculelatum occurs there. I found it in two stations.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Aug. 12


 

-

Vol. 8 (21) [H 204]

 

Albany, Aug. 19th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of Aug. 17th I make out the following thus,

 

x1 Trichobasis Labiatarum Lev.

-2 Eggs of "Golden eye" or more commonly "Lace wing Fly" - Chrysopa.

xe Uromyces Junci (Schw.) = Puccinia Junci Schw.

x5 I found this for the first time in my recent trip north, growing on the fruit of Amelanchier and named it, in my notes, Roestelia aurantiaca, in reference to the orange colored spores - a character in which it differs from every other species known to me.

x6 Insect work.

x7 Cystopus candidus Lev.

x8 Boletus strobilaceus Scop.

x9 Hydnum coralloides Scop.

x12 Orthotrichum strangulatum Beauv.

x14 Lecythea Saliceti Lev.

x15 Dr. Curtis formerly named this for me, as Uredo Leguminosarum Lk. and I probably have so named it for you before, but when I came to see the description of that species I could not believe this to be the same. I therefore, gave it in my last Report as Uredo Aecidioides n. sp. - the sori after the falling of the spores resembling little Aecidium-like cups.

x16 Lycoperdon pyriforme Schaeff.

x17 Trichobasis Ari-Virginici (Schw.) = Uredo Ari-Virginici Schw.

x21 Gymnostomum rupestre Schwaegr.

 

If next month should not be excessively dry I purpose collecting a few toadstools in Cattaraugus County.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Aug. 21


 

Vol. 8 (22) [H 203]

 

Albany, Aug. 23d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I should say the specimens of Aug. 20 from Lime Lake are:

 

x1 Fissidens adiantoides Hedw.

x2 Madotheca platyphylla Dumort.

x3 Frullania Eboracensis Lehm.

x4 Pylaisaea velutina W. P. Sch.

x5 Hypnum cordifolium Hedw.

x6 Hypnum plumosum (with the fruit)

   Dicranum interruptum (sterile)

x7 Orthotrichum crispulum Hornsch.

x10 Rhytisma Ilicis [?]-Canadensis Schw.

x11 Rhytisma Prini Schw.

 

8, 9 & 12 are not determined

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Aug. 24


 

Vol. 8 (25) [H 200]

 

Albany, Sept. 8th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

My right eye has been and is yet affect just as my left was last spring. This forbids any use of the microscope at present and I only give you the names of such as I recognize at sight

 

Aug. 31

x1 Corticium salicinum Fr.

x2 Coniothecium toruloideum B. & C.

x4 Bulgaria inquinans Fr.

 

Sept. 2

x5 Pileolaria brevipes B. & C.

 

Sept. 4th

 

x2 Crucibulum vulgare Tul. as given in Cooke's new work. Formerly Cyathus crucibulum.

 

Sept. 5th

 

I do not recognize either of the two.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Sept. 9


 

Vol. 8 (36) [H 189]

 

Albany, Oct. 4th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have just returned from a short and not overwhelmingly successful trip to Cattaraugus Co., Watkins and Montezuma Marshes. I found but few Agarics, it being too dry and cold for them, but have some other very good things. My eye is well again and I shall begin gradually to use it. My trouble seems to me to have been not so much a weakness from over exertion as a kind of distemper that would be likely to attack good as well as poor eyes. I hope I shall not be troubled with it again as it has now given both my eyes a trial.

 

The specimens that have come during my absence so far as I can now say, are;

 

Sept. 26

x2 Sporocybe Persicae Fr.

3 Dicranum varium Hedw.

 

Sept. 28

x1 Trypethelium virens Tuck. (Lichen)

3 Polyporus elongatus Berk.

x4 Irpex cinnamomeus Fr.

 

Sept. 30

x1 Microsphaeria Syringae Schw.

x2 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Oct. 5


 

Vol. 8 (38) [H 187]

 

Albany, Oct. 12th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The missing packets were not lost, but came when my eye was pretty bad and were laid aside till a more convenient time.

 

Of Sept 7 I would name the following thus-

x1 Vermicularia dematium Fr.

x2 Vermicularia dematium Fr.

x3 Not developed; probably Roestelia cornuta

x4 Roestelia cornuta Tul. (small)

 

I have found three species of Roestelia on Amelanchier, viz. R. cornuta on the leaves, R. lacerata on leaves and fruit and R. aurantiaca n. sp. on the fruit. I am not sure what Schweinitz's R. Botryapites is, but suspect it to be R. cornuta. He has a very unsatisfactory way of describing all his Coniomycetes. Specimens received from Dr. Curtis labeled "Roestelia Botryapites Schw." are only the spermogonia of R. cornuta or R. lacerata.

 

x6 Uromyces solida B & C.

x7 Uromyces triquetra Cooke.

x10 & 11 Polyporus adustus Fr.

 

Sept. 8

x1 Rhytisma Asteris Schw.

x2 Trichobasis Iridicola Pk. This will be figured and described in the 24th Report.

x3 Erysiphe communis Schl.

x4 I sent this thing to Cooke some time ago but he has not yet ventured to name it.

x5 & 6 Uncinula adunca Lev.

x10 Polyporus salicinus Fr.

 

Sept. 10

x6 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

   The one labeled "Omitted in my last" is Polyporus sulfureus Fr. & is without number.

 

Of the remainder some are not good and some I am not able at present to identify.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Oct. 13

 

[At top of front sheet: "Please send more of No. 2 - Sept. 2nd - Tilia" "C.H.P." - I think in Clinton's handwriting - see letter below, Vol. 8 No.

43.]


 

 

Vol. 8 (43) [H 181]

 

Albany, Oct. 19th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I name such of your several sendings as I am able.

 

Oct. 13

x4 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x12 Is a fine Puccinia but needs further examination and comparison.

x13 & x14 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

 

Oct 14

x4 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x7 Puccinia Myrrhis Schw. probably. I am not quite satisfied that this is distinct from P. Umbelliferarum. Is a good Puccinia with rough spores. Nothing is said of this character in P. Prunorum else I should think it that species.

 

Oct. 15

x3 Uredo Solidaginis Schw.

x4 This is like 12 of Oct. 13. I at first thought them Puccinia Menthae but the pedicels are long, not "short" as described

x10 Puccinia striola Lk.

x11 Puccinia Compositarum Schlect. [sp.?]

 

Oct. 16

x4 Lecythea Rub[o]rum Lev.

x1 Microsphaeria penicillata Lev.

 

Oct. 17

 

1 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

 

The one on Tilia leaves I think is a new species of Uncinula. I wish to send a few of the doubtful species to M. C. Cooke for his opinion.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 23

 

P.S. I have an Arceuthobium from Sandlake which Engelmann thinks is a new species. It is certainly new to our State. Will send you specimens as soon as Dr. Engelmann decides upon the species.

 

[See Vol. 8 No. 38 above for reference to the specimen on Tilia.]


 

Vol. 8 (44) [H 180]

 

Albany, Oct. 25th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

M. C. Cooke's "Handbook of British Fungi" 2 Vols. is the most satisfactory thing of the kind that I have seen. It is much more complete than "Berkeley's Outlines", giving a description of all known British Fungi, whether great or small, and illustrating most of the genera by a woodcut. It contains the combined knowledge of Berkeley, Smith and Cooke. Of course a vast number of our American species are not in it, but I have no hesitation in saying that it is the best thing students of Mycology can at present procure. My copy cost $5.75 but I subscribed for it before it was published and the price may be a little more now. This can be found out by applying to "Rev. E. C. Bolles, Salem, Mass." who is Mr. Cookes authorized agent, and from whom I presume the work can be had.

 

I name a part of your specimens

 

Oct. 18

x1 Puccinia graminis Pers.

x2 Uncinula (Undescribed I think)

 

Oct. 22

x3 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x4 Sphaerotheca (Undescribed I think) (Would like a little more if you have it to spare.)

x5 Weissia viridula Brid.

x7 Trichobasis Pyrolae Berk. ( = Uredo Pyrolae ...)

x9 only mycelium

x11 Mnium punctatum Hedw.

x12 Glonium stellatum Muhl.

x18 Puccinia Lespedezae-violaceae Schw. but it is a Uromyces and should be Uromyces Lespedezae-violaceae (Schw.)

x19 Phragmidium obtusum Lk. = (Aregma obtusatum Fr.)

x20 probably Puccinia Menthae but because of a slight apparent discrepancy in the description I have sent this to Cooke. Will report when I hear from him.

x21 Erineum alnigerum

x22 Microsphaeria

x22 Microsphaeria  sp.?

x23 = 21 & 22

24 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr.

28 Microsphaeria (Undescribed & think) (Can you spare another bit?)

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Oct. 28


 

Vol. 8 (47) [H 177]

 

Albany, Nov. 3d, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Oct. 27

2 Dothidea graminis Fr. = (Sphaeria graminis Pers.)

3 & under side of 4 Uncinula. Species uncertain. Upper side of 4 is probably Sphaeria Ulmi but is without fruit.

 

Oct. 31

x3 Scorias spongiosa Fr.?

x4 Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw. (Gloeoporus nigropurpurascens (Schw.) in Curtis Catalogue.)

1 & 2 not determined.

 

I suspect "Erysiphe penicillata Fr." in Ravenel is meant to be the same species now known as Microsphaeria penicillata but I have grave doubts concerning the correctness of its application - at least so far as the specimen on Syringa vulgaris is concerned. Were I a smoker I would be willing to bet the cigars that that specimen is Microsphaeria Syringae (Schw.) a very different species.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 6


 

Vol. 8 (48) [H 176]

 

Albany, Nov. 13th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have looked at the specimens of Nov. 10th with the following result.

 

x2 Merulius tremellosus Schrad.

x3 Hysterium biforme Fr. probably It is new to us. Can you spare some more?

x5 Cantharellus crispus Fr.

x6 Stereum complicatum Fr.

x8 Peziza furfuracea Fr.

x9 Dichaena faginea Fr.

x11 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode. This is said to be a form of Nectria cinnabarina.

x12 Pedicellate variety of 11 apparently.

x13 Polyporus cinnabarinus Fr.

x16 Hypoxylon serpens (Pers.)

"1" on Dandelion is a Sphaerotheca which will be determined hereafter.

 

Nov. 11

3 Tremella meseuterica Retz.

x6 Tremella foliacea Pers.

x8 Stereum complicatum Fr.

 

The one returned is probably Sphaeronema subtile Fr. but I saw no globule and was able to get none by moistening the specimen.

 

[no ending]

 

Received Nov. 16


 

Vol. 8 (49) [H 175]

 

Albany, Nov. 16th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

"Franklin B. Hough, Lowville, N.Y." is the address you want. I do not know any botanist in Jefferson Co., neither at Little Falls. There can be no doubt of the occurrence of Carex sychnocephala in Jefferson Co. We have a specimen here so labelled - one received from Prof. Dewey, who it appears received it direct from Carey.

 

Mr. Paine, in his Catalogue gives its localities quite definitely so that if it still remains it would not be a very difficult matter to collect it next season. Mr. P. may have a supply of specimens as I infer from his remarks that he found it in Jefferson Co.

 

I have not Muller's Synopsis. Probably it could be obtained of or through Scribner & Co., or Westermann & Co. New York; or of F. W. Christern 77 University Place, New York.

 

Probably the "Stereum frustulosum" on Juniper is an error of mine. At any rate I do not now remember of ever seeing that species on Juniper, whereas S. acerinum is common about here on the bark of Juniperus Virginiana. I have found S. frustulosum on wood of deciduous trees only. I apprehend there are quite a number of errors in my earlier namings of specimens for you and I have been anxious to give your specimens a revision - a work which I intended to do last winter but was obliged to omit because of the demand made on my time in the preparations of lectures for the Scientific Course here.

 

"Oct. 13"

 

1 I believe to be Trichia clavata. The other little fellows I make nothing of.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. The Nectria which Dr. Curtis called "N. appendiculata n. sp." is described in Cookes Handbook under the name N. inaurata B. & Br.

 


 

Vol. 8 (50) [H 174]

 

Albany, Nov. 18th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

In reporting on the specimens of Nov. 10th I meant to give Nos. 11 & 12 as Tubercularia vulgaris Tode and 17 as a pedicellate variety of the same, but it seems I blundered in some way.

 

Is your 17 on bark of Carpinus? It is often desirable to know the habitat. I have a Nectria on bark of Carpinus about which I am in doubt. I have sent a specimen of it to Cooke. If he makes a new species of it, it is not at all unlikely that your Tubercularia will turn out to be a condition of this Nectria and therefore distinct from Tubercularia vulgaris which is a condition of N. cinnabarina. I can detect no difference in the size and shape of the spores between this and T. vulgaris. I have the same pedicellate form on the striped maple and at first thought it a new species but comparing the spores with those of T. vulgaris and finding no difference I concluded it was only a pedicellate variety produced by the greater elongation of the filaments of the stroma. However, if the perfect condition - the Nectria - can be connected with it, it will settle the matter of its identity. I supose all the Tubercularia and probably some or all the Fusarium species will yet be reduced to Conidiophorous conditions of the Nectria.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 19


 

Vol. 8 (53) [H 171]

 

Albany, Nov. 20th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of Nov. 18 I do not recognize No.1 - apparently poor specimens of some lichen. 2, 3 & 4 I think are all forms of one lichen Opegrapha  varia Pers.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 21


 

Vol. 8 (54) [H 170]

 

Albany, Nov. 25th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Nov. 21st I find

 

1 Cladosporium herbarum

2 Cladosporium herbarum and a little of something else probably a Thecaphora.

x3 Trogia crispa of Cookes Handbook - formerly Cantharellus crispus Fr.

x4 The green is Cladosporium herbarum apparently. These are now thought to be only a condition of Sphaeriae.

x5 Streptothrix atra B. & C. but only threads. The spores are all gone.

 

Nov. 23

x1 Stictis - but no spores and species uncertain

4 Sphaeria rostrata Fr. but sterile. 2, 3 & 5 I get no satisfaction out of.

 

I will try to get more of the Thecophora and make something out of it. I have observed it before but could never find any notice of it, and now think I must notice it myself.

 

I believe your Microsphaeria (28 Oct. 22) on "Atragalus Cooperi?" to be an undescribed species which ought to be dedicated to you. I have been giving my specimens of Puccinia a thorough overhauling and have finally concluded to restore Puccinia Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton, as I find the spores a little larger than those of P. Cryptotaeniae, although of the same shape. As I now make it we have about forty species in the State. Yours on Mentha and Monarda is P. Menthae Pers. but differing from the typical form in being rougher. All our American specimens have this peculiarity and strange enough it extends to the spores of its Uredo form - Trichobasis Labiatarum.

Your No. 6 Oct. 14 is P. Prunorum Lk. Can you spare a few more specimens of this? I never found it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck   

 

Received Nov. 21


 

Vol. 8 (57) [H 167]

 

Albany, Nov. 28th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I do not make much out of the specimens of Nov. 27th

 

3 is what I have described in the 24th Report under the name Peziza Tiliae Pk.

4 in imperfect

2 I will send a part to Cooke for his opinion. It has a little unusual look but is probably only a form of Nummularia Bulliardi Tul. = (Hypoxylon nummularium Fr.)

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton  

Received Nov. 29


 

Vol. 8 (60) [H 164]

 

Albany, Nov. 30th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the specimens of P. Prunorum.

 

Of the specimens of Nov. 28 my report must be somewhat unsatisfactory.

 

x4 Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

x9 Hydnum Erinaceus Bull.

x10 Uromyces ? The spores in this and in one I find in great abundance on leaves of Sweet flag (Acorus Calamus) are like each other and like those on Juncus effusus (U. Junci (Schw.)) I have sent the three to M. C. Cooke to see if he can find any mark of distinction. I do not.

 

3 Sphinctrina    ? Not on P. hirsutus but P. laceratus or P. abietinus; in such old specimens I depend on the habitat to decide - the former growing on hardwood, the latter on hemlock, spruce or pine. The species is near S. tigillaris B. & Br. but I must investigate further. I found the same thing last year but have not yet reported it.

 

x8 This is the effete state of Gerard's Aecidium. He at first sent it to me as on Cephalanthus but afterward found it was on Nesaea. In the dried specimens I failed to find any good mark to separate it from Aecidium Sambuci Schw.

 

A more careful examination of No. 7 Aug. 17 on "Cirsium" satisfies me that it is Cystopus cubicus Str. - not C. candidus as I formerly thought. Have you a few extra specimens of this to spare?

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Dec. 3

 

[Note that question marks made far from the genus name indicate the species is in doubt, not the genus!!]


 

Vol. 8 (61) [H 163]

 

Albany, Dec. 6th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Dec. 2nd

No 1 Polyporus lacteus Fr.

2 Polyporus scutellatus Schw.

4 Merulius tremellosus as you say. Schweinitz has a M. incarnatus near this but I am not yet able to see the distinction.

5 Peziza coccinea Jacq. variety. This is thinner and externally smoother and brighter colored than the ordinary form. The spores are a trifle smaller - the largest ones of this being equal to the smallest in that, but of the same shape. A rigid splitter might make a species of it but so far as I am able to see from the dried specimens, I perfer to regard it as a variety. I think ou once called my attention particularly to this form. I have never found it myself.

 

Dec. 4th

1 Stilbum pellucidum Schrad.

2 Not able to say what.

3 Calicium - near C. lenticulare but does not agree exactly with the description. I must leave the species uncertain. No Sphinctrina in this.    Cystopus cubicus in Cooke's Handbook is followed by the abbreviation "Str." He does not explain what it means but I suppose it stands for Strauss.

 

I do not know what Mr. Gerard finally concluded to do with the Aecidium of the Nesaea.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Dec. 7


 

Vol. 8 (62) [H 162]

 

Albany, Dec. 8th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I do not think Biatora vernalis is limited to any particular species of moss. My specimens appear to be on Hypnum curvifolium but the moss is so badly  incrusted it is difficult to get at the species. I also have specimens on bark of trees and it is said to grow on the ground, wood etc.

 

I am sure I can give no reason for the name "vernalis" for it certainly is not limited to the spring season. I have found it in good condition in July. Names are not always appropriate though they may have seemed so when given.

 

I do not feel "strong" in Potamogeton. I consider them miserable things to deal with.

 

"A Dec 3" is the same Sphinctrina you sent before. I hesitate to call it S. tigillaris because the spores are .0004' - .0005' long while the description of that species gives the spores .00015' - .0003' long. S. turbinata has the spores globose - these are oblong.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Dec. 9

 

[A series of species names is written sideways on the back in pencil, probably in Peck's handwriting with no other information. This is apparently scrap paper.]


 

Vol. 8 (65) [H 159]

 

Albany, Dec. 12th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Dec. 8th No 3 is the only good thing I get. It is Valsa salicina Fr.

 

4, 5 and 6 are apparently some obscure lichens which I do not recognize.

 

Undoubtedly the fungus on clover leaf is Dothidea Trifolii Fr. It is sterile and so I apprehend it always is - at least neither in Fries nor in Cooke's Handbook are the spores described.

 

Kindest regards to Miss Wilson. I am very busy on my report just now but will make out such of her lichen desiderata as I can, by the time of the Annual Meeting of the Regents if not before.

 

I name Fowler's fungi so far as I can without spending too much time on them.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Fowler's Fungi (partly)

x1 Dithidea Trifolii Fr.

x2 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

"No. 0" Imperfect but probably Irpex Tulipiferae Schw.

x4 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode

x5 Hypoxylon concentricum Fr.

x6 Panus stypticus Fr.

x7 Erineum fagineum Pers.

x8 Dothidea graminum Fr.

x10 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x11 Ustilago Carbo Tul. (Ustilago segetum Dittm.)

x12 Polyporus laceratus Berk.?

x14 Gloeoporus nigropurpurascens (Schw.)

x18 Daedalea cinerea Fr.

x20 = 10

x21 Polyporus laceratus Berk.

x22 Lenzites betulina Fr.

x27 Ustilago urceolorum DC.

x28 = 5

x30 Imperfect but would probably make Trichobasis Cichoracearum Lev.

x31 Imperfect. Peziza resinae and other things grow in such places.

 

Received Dec. 13


 

Vol. 8 (74) [H 148]

 

Albany, Dec. 26th, 1871

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Your "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" are most heartily reciprocated.

 

"A Dec. 25" is not in good condition and I am unable to say what it is.

4 Oct. 22 is Sphaerotheca Castagnei Lev.

2 Nov. 27, sent to Cooke but he does not name it; so I have been digging away at it and conclude it is Hypoxylon atropurpureum Fr. - an addition to our Flora. Can you spare a specimen or two more of it?

 

[In margin in pencil in Clinton's handwriting: Put up a Nummularia

Bulliardi?]

[See letter Vol. 8 No. 57]

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Dec. 27