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

March 4, 2011


Return to home

The Correspondence of

Charles Peck (1833-1917) and

George William Clinton (1807 1885)

 

1872 part 1

 


 

Vol. 8 (77) [H 145]

 

Albany, Jan. 2nd, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the Hypox. atropurpureum.

 

Of Dec. 30

1 & 3 seem to me to be some degenerate lichen. I find no fruit and must leave them undecided.

2 Stereum rubiginosum Schrad.

4 No fruit & uncertain

5 & 6 I consider only a form of Puccinia graminis DC.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. I hope to see you here in a few days and will try to have a few specimens ready for you.

 

C.H.P.

 

Received Jan. 3


 

Vol. 8 (80) [H 141]

 

Albany, Jan. 12th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

You asked for a specimen of Aecidium Mariae-Wilsonii but in my haste I omitted it form the specimens put up for you. Believing in the old adage "better late than never" I send it on after you.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Jan. 13


 

Vol. 8 (82) [H 139]

 

Albany, Jan'y 15th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I provisionally called the Microsphaeria on Astragalus, M. Grossulariae but am in doubt if right. The appendages are long and flexuous, sometimes angularly bent, and the branchlets are not clearly bidentate at the tips; otherwise it agrees well with the description of M. Grossulariae. I tried to get a specimen of this species from Cooke for comparison but he had none to spare, so it is now my purpose to send a specimen of your plant to him to see what he will do with it. The great trouble I have to contend with is the short and unsatisfactory descriptions given of many fungi. Sometimes a specimen may agree with every character given in a description and yet be a distinct species from the one described. The earlier authors, Schweinitz among the others, almost entirely neglecting the spores which frequently furnish some of the best specific characters, have caused much confusion and uncertainty as to their species. Schweinitz even distributed different species under one name and thus laid the foundation for considerable confusion.

 

I did not come to any conclusion concerning the specimen on Alnus incana. I hope soon to get at your specimens and give them a revision for I am aware of some erroneous determinations among them. An instance in point is the Aecidium Peckii which I thought at first was a new species but which afterward I concluded was only Aecidium Menthae DC.

 

You may rely on Puccinia Umbelliferarum for I have compared it with European specimens authenticated by M. C. Cooke. I should have written the habitat of the Puccinia on the labels, but I put them up in haste, part of them while you were waiting, and this perhaps was the cause of the "lapsus pennae" or rather "lapsus mentis" in writing Puccinia Gerardiae when I should have written Puccinia Gerardii as it is in the report [note, however, his consistent use of Mariae-Wilsonii] If my Synopsis of our Pucciniae shall ever be printed I think it will be a great advance on anything we now have for illustrating this genus.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Jan. 16


 

Vol. 8 (85) [H 135]

 

Albany, Feb. 3d, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have been engaged some days in going over your specimens and have got up to those of 1871. When I get through I will send you the results.

 

I inclose now a part of a specimen which I consider new. Dr. Curtis sent me the same thing on leaves of some Aesculus. He had it labeled "Uncinula adunca Lev." but it is very unlike that species in every particular - mycelium, conceptacles, appendages and number of spores. If you have two or three spare leaves with this on I would like them. It is peculiar in its appendages which are wavy-flexuous; thus, [drawing]

 

I would also be glad if you could spare me two or three more leaves of No 3 Oct. 27 1871 which I named Uncinula Bivonae Lev. The leaf I have is badly tagged out on the margin and I am not sure what leaf it is. Can you tell from your specimens or labeling? This has 2 spores in each ascus as required by the description of U. Bivonae but after all I have some doubts as to the other characters. I wish to see other specimens if possible. We already have seven species of Uncinula in this State, which I think is remarkable when only three species are reported for Great Britain. U. adunca is the only English species we have. When I settle two or three doubtful points I want to make out a synopsis of our species.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 5


 

Vol. 8 (86) [H 134]

 

Albany, Feb. 7th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the specimens of Uncinula. The leaves look elmish but they are more rough and more coarsely toothed than in our specimens of native elms. I am therefore puzzled as to the habitat of this fungus.

 

The fungus of Nov. 25, Goat Island, is without fruit and I am not able to determine it satisfactorily. Some Sphaeria.

 

The specimen returned is a Tubercularia - probably T. vulgaris Tode. The species are not easily separated and are probably all mere conditions (conidia) of Nectiae.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. Mr. Paine informs me that Asplenium  montanum has been found near Poughkeepsie.

 

Received Feb. 8


 

Vol. 8 (87) [H 133]

 

Albany, Feb. 17th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Your specimens of Feb. 12/72, I call Septonema spilomeum Berk. I trust the Independent Ticket enclosing them was triumphantly elected.

 

I this day send you by Express such of your specimens as I have been able to determine. This by no means included all you have sent me. Some I am not able to make out, some I have placed in the Herbarium, many were imperfect or mere discolored spots and most of the fleshy Agarici could not be safely determined in the dry state. A few things in fertile condition I am not able to locate and will send to M. C. Cooke.

 

I really have hopes of getting soon a few copies of my portion of the 23d Report for distribution in advance. If we succeed in this I shall be glad and trust it will be of some aid to those desiring an acquaintance with our fleshy fungi.

 

I have already prepared my Synopsis of N.Y. Uncinulae with a plate illustrating the specific characters and purpose trying to get the Albany Institute to publish it for me.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 19


 

Vol. 8 (90) [H 130]

 

Albany, Feb. 21st., 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Mr. Cooke thinks the enclosed, though very near Uromyces Junci Schw., is a good species. I find he has also described the Uromyces on leaves of sweet flag under the name U. pyriformis Cooke. differing chiefly from U. Junci in its habit.

 

I fear my days for public botanizing are nearly over. Our reform Legislature has seen fit to insert in the Appropriation Bill, now reported, a clause abolishing the office of botanist instead of making the usual appropriation therefor. Unless this can be changed back again of course I am undone, and I suppose the odds are against me since Mr. Alvord is said to be especially opposed to every thing that has the name of science.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 22


 

Vol. 8 (92) [H 128]

 

Albany, Feb. 23d, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I consider the fungus on horn (A Feb. 22) to be Onygena equina Pers. I suspect it is rather rare although I have never looked especially for it"B Feb. 22" is not Zygodesmus fuscus. It seems to me to be an imperfect state of Eutypa spinosa Tul., which is Sphaeria spinosa Pers. in the older works.

 

I have been thinking that I did not state explicitly, in my letter of the 21st, the state of my case before the Legislature. The clause in the Appropriation Bill which heretofore has been "For the employment of botanist etc.", in the New Appropriation Bill which is printed and has been reported is now made to read, The office of botanist is hereby abolished from the first of October, 1872. The clause pertaining to the Entomologist of the State Agricultural Society is similarly worded so that I suspect Mr. Alvord means to deny in toto all State support to scientific investigation. He has had things pretty much his own way thus far in the Legislature so that I have little expectation that the Bill, in this respect can be amended. I would not think quite so hard of it if the Bill incorporating the State Museum of Nat. Hist. had not authorized me to believe that my work would certainly be continued another year. It seems to me to be a species of bad faith on the part of the Legislature or something at least approaching it, should they cut me off now.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. I have sent your Microsphaeria Grossulariae? (on Astragalus Cooperi) to Cooke. I now believe you have a new species on leaves of Oxalis stricta.

 

Received Feb. 24


 

Vol. 8 (94) [H 126]

 

Albany, Feb. 26th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Yours of the 22d inst. has just now been received.

 

No. 1 is a lichen but I do not recognize the species.

No2 is in an imperfect condition - mere cells, not determinable. Puccinia prophyrogenitaCurt. and  P. acuminata Pk. are one and the same thing. The history of the naming is this. I found it among my early discoveries of fungi and finding no description of it I sent it to Dr. Curtis asking him what species it was. He replied Puccinia Waldsteiniae Curt. I had a specimen of P. Waldsteiniae from Dr. Howe nd upon comparing the two I became satisfied that my specimens were distinct. I again wrote to Dr. Curtis giving him my views in the case and pointing out to him the distinctive characters. Then he gave thename P. porphyrogenita to my

specimens on Cornus Canadensis. I did not like the name, nor did I think it quite fair that he should take advantage of my labor in correcting his error and deprive me of the right to name the species. Still I admitted his name through courtesy and should have retained it, but in my investigations of our Pucciniae the past season I found that the purplish color was by no means a constant character of the species and as no description had yet been published and as I was well aware that Dr. Curtis never intended to publish it I thought best to change its name to what seemed to me a more appropriate one. I do not generally allow myself to do anything that looks like meanness on my part, but in this case I thought I would risk it for the sake of improving a name.

 

I begin to indulge a faint hope that, if Mr. Alvord should not be obstinately unreasonable, it may be possible to get the appropriation restored.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. I think the other specimens I desired were Polyporus conchifer Schw. and Sporocybe calicioides Fr.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Feb. 27


 

 

Vol. 8 (96) [H 124]

 

Albany, Feb. 28th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Cyathus campanulatus Fr. and Nidularia campanulata Sow. are synonyms of Cyathus vernicosus DC. Both Berkely and Cooke give this last name preference whence I suppose it has priority.

 

Of Feb. 27th

xA seems to me to be an undescribed species of Thelephora.

 

T. Sowerbei Berk. seems to come nearest to it, being pure white and infundibuliform, but it is said to be rough and aculeate on the upper surface - a character which I do not detect in your specimens

xB Apparently some old Sphaeria, but being without fruit it is not easy to say what the species is.

xC Graphis scripta Ach. (A lichen)

xD Imperfect

xE Phlebia radiata Fr. This seems to be the bright colored form which Schweinitz thought a distinct species and named P. cinnabarina

xF Hydnum Erinaceus Bull.

 

Trichobasis Cichoracearum = Uredo Cichoracearum, the latter being used before the genus Trichobasis was separated from Uredo. The Handbook considers this species to be a dimorphic form of Puccinia Compositarum.

 

I do not now think of anything more that you can do in the matter of the appropriation unless you may think of some one beside those already written to who would be likely to have a favorable influence with Mr. Alvord. I doubt if anything can now be done till the Bill comes before the  Senate Committee

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 29


 

-

Vol. 8 (97) [H 123]

 

Albany, Mar. 1st, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I was in some doubt whether the Microsphaeria on Alnus leaves was a variety of M. penicillata or a distinct species and therefore sent a specimen to M. C. Cooke. When I get his reply I will tell you what it is.

The Sphaerotheca on Taraxacum is S. Castagnei Lev. This species occurs on a great variety of leaves.

 

Of Feb. 28

1 is in poor condition - no fruit, and I am not sure what it is.

2 Cyathus vernicosus DC. it is the same as C. campanulatus.

3 Excipula    n. sp. This, the white Thelephora and the Microsphaeria on Oxalis are, so far as I know, all undescribed, and you being the discoverer, have the right to name if you are so disposed. If not, let me know and I will try to fill up the blanks.

 

The boxes by Express have just arrived and I will see what I can make of the contents.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. I should have said that 4 & 5 are not fungi - the one seems to be

mere whitish specks, the other the work of insects.

 

Received March 3


 

Vol. 8 (99) [H 121]

 

Albany, Mar. 2nd, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Feb. 29th

x1 & 4 are Uncinula Ampelopsidis Pk.

x2 & 3 are Uncinula Clintonii Pk.

x5 is Uncinula flexuosa Pk.

x6 is no fungus. I never saw good specimens of Gerard's Microsphaeria Peckii, although I have collected a Microsphaeria on elder leaves twice; so that I am yet uncertain if there really is such a species. I have communicated my Synopsis of N.Y. Uncinulae to the Albany Inst.and if the publishing Committee decide favorably, it will be published ere long. A plate accompanies it illustrating the specific characters.

 

Of Mar. 1st

x1 Uncinula clintonii Pk.

x2 Imperfect - mere cells without definite structure

3  Imperfect

x4 Imperfect

x5 & 11 I don't understand these at all.

x6 Peziza Tiliae Pk.

x7 Sent to Cooke for his opinion

x8 Imperfect

x9 Fusarium erubescens B. & C. according to specimens from Dr. Curtis. I have seen no description.

x10 Imperfect.

x12 Seems to be a Periconia, but the spores are singular. I think it is undescribed.

 

Prof. Hall has commenced work with a view to correct Mr. Alvord's unwarrantable and wicked crusade against scientific labor.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 3


 

 

Vol. 8 (101) [H 119]

 

Albany, Mar. 4th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The letter of Mr. Lewis cheers me very much. It raises my hopes from 32* [degree sign] at least up to 72*.

 

Of Mar 2d

x1 has no fruit and is uncertain

x2 Cytispora       All the Cytispora are now regarded as forms of species of Valsa. This is probably a form of V. ambiens.

x3 Helminthosporium macrocarpum Grev.

x4 Nemaspora crocea Pers. Cooke in Handbook says this is the spermogonia of Melanconis  stilbostoma.

x5 Not determined. I have quite a number of Myxogasters undetermined, but I hope to clear them up some time.

x6 Corticium Oakesii B. & C. according to Dr. Curtis. I have seen no description of this.

x7 Phlebia radiata Fr.

x8 Sphaeria       . I sent this to Cooke last summer but he did not determine it. I suspect it is undescribed. If I do not hear from it before I make another report I shall name and describe it.

x9 Stereum purpureum Fr.

 

Of Mar. 3d

I am unable to make out anything very satisfactorily.

x1 May be Polyporus ferrugineus but there is nothing sure about it. So many Polypori have both a resupinate and a dimidiate form that they are puzzling. Our species need a careful revision.

x2 Peziza Tiliae Pk. apparently, but it is too old.

x3 Imperfect

x4 Imperfect

x5 This Peziza is common but I never could find a description to meet it. Think I must send it to Cooke.

6 Probably a form of Polyporus elegans

7 & 10 Not determined.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received  March 5


 

Vol. 8 (104) [H 116]

 

Albany, Mar. 6th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 4, No. 1 is Vermicularia Dematium Fr., at least so much of it as is fully developed. The very minute dots are without fruit and uncertain.

 

2 & 3 are both sterile and uncertain - the former some Valsa and the latter probably a Leptostroma.

 

I have finished the examination of the specimens in the boxes and will return by Express those that I have thought I could identify. Among these Ag. silvaticus is new to me, so also is the white Amanita (unnamed) Should you find this again I would be glad if you would make a few notes of the character of the plant when fresh, whether smooth or rough, dry or viscid, striate on the margin or even, and see if there is any trace of a valve at the base of the stem.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 7


 

Vol. 8 (105) [H 115]

 

Albany, Mar. 7th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 5th, I make

x1 Imperfect. It looks some like Valsa stilbostoa but is not good.

x2 No fungus

x3 Vermicularia acuminata Schw.

x4 Not determinable.

x5 Microsphaeria       I am waiting Mr. Cooke's opinion of this.

x6 One piece contains some sterile Hysterium - the other is a Sphaeria, apparently the same that grows on oak bark, of which I am waiting for M. C. Cookes decision.

 

z7 Uromyces appendiculata Lev.

x8 Puccinia Polygonorum Lk.

x9 Appears to be a Septoria but I find no description of it, nor any spore tendrils

x10 & x13 Coryneum clavaesporum Pk but without spores.

x11 Imperfect

x12 Valsa quaternata Fr.

x14 Tubercularia granulata Pers.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 8


 

Vol. 8 (106) [H 114]

 

Albany, Mar. 8th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 6th

x1  & x2 Apparently a Colpoma. I wish to send this to Cooke.

x3 Diatrype disciformis Fr.? The spores are a little longer than given in the description and therefore I have some doubt concerning the species.

x4 Vermicularia, but species uncertain.

x5 Imperfect.

x6 Illosporium roseum Fr.

x7 No fungus

8 No fungus.

x9 Sterile and not determinable

x10 Imperfect

x11 Sterile but looks like Leptostroma vulgare.

x12 Imperfect

 

Of Mar. 7th

x1 No fungus.

x2 Aecidium tenue Schw.

x3 No fungus

x4 Imperfect. Apparently some sterile Hypoxylon

x5 No good fungus. I sent this to Cooke but he could give me no help.x6 Streptothrix atra B. & C. (fide Dr. Curtis) This is one of their many undescribed species.

x7 Cytispora       Probably a form of Valsa ambiens.

x8 Sphaeria fimbriata Pers.

x9 Looks like young Aethalium septicum.

x10 Seems like the beginning of a Phytisma.

x11 Young Trichia clavata

x12 & x13 Imperfect.

 

Of Mar. 8th

x1 Not P. ferruginosus but I am uncertain what the species is. It approaches resupinate Polyporus salicinus Fr.

x2 Imperfect

x3 Looks like imperfect Peziza Agassizii B. & C.

x4 Polyactis vulgaris Lk. ?

x5 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr.

x6 Nectria ochracea Fr. This is new to us and the specimens are imperfect being without asci, yet I have scarcely a doubt of its identity.

x7 Melampsora populina Lev.

8 Not good.

x9 Hypoxylon multiforme Fr.

x10 Sterile and uncertain.

11 Stemonitis fusca Roth.

12 Uncertain

x13 Trichis turbinata With.

x14 No fungus

x15 Sterile & uncertain

16 Erysiphe communis Shcl.

x17 Imperfect

 

Of Mar. 9th

x1 Sterile but apparently Microthyrium Smilacis DeNot.

x2 Hydnum sulphureum Schw.

3 Stemonitis typhoides DC.

x4 Cytispora

x5 Immature.

x6 Sterile & uncertain

x7 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull. in Handbook = Hypoxylon fragiforme Pers.

x8 Eutypa spinosa Jul.

x9 Vermicularia    sterile & species uncertain

x10 No fungus

x11 Imperfect

x12 & x13 No fungus

x14 Puccinia Prunorum Lk.

x15 No fungus

x16 Imperfect

 

Of Mar. 10th

x1 Sterile & Uncertain        

2 Not in good condition

x3, x4, x9,x10 I have already sent to Cooke and await his reply

x5 Valsa Pini A. & S.

 

Mar. 9.

6 Too old to be determined

7 Not determined

8 Must try Cooke on this

11 No fungus

x12 Apparently some Erineum but I don not find it described

x14 Aecidium - probably undescribed. If you find it next season please send

x15 Stereum hirsutum Fr.

x16 Conferva, but I am unable to tell the species

x17 Uncertain

x18 Sphaeronema   species uncertain

 x19 The perfect specimens = 7

x20 Valsa ambiens Fr.

 

The box has arrived. I will examine to-morrow.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 9


 

Vol. 8 (108) [H 112]

 

Albany, Mar. 12th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

x    Agaricus vaginatus Bull. belongs to the subgenus Amanita.

x   Ag. cespitosus M. A. C. in Curtis' Catalogue is in the subgenus

Collybia.

x   Ag. fabaceus Berk. (Psalliota)

x   Ag. spumosus Fr. (Flammula)

 

I have been unable to do much for two or three days but hope to get to work again soon.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 14

 

[It is somehow amazing to read of all the work involved here - especially with Clinton serving a term as Superior Court Judge in the City of Buffalo.]


 

Vol. 8 (110) [H 110]

 

Albany, Mar. 15th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

My bilious attack still hangs on and keeps me in the house, but I expect to be out again soon.

 

Excicpula Equiseti Pk.

Thelephora Willeyi Clinton

 

Microsphaeria Russellii Clinton is the way I have put the new species in my notes and expect to put them in my next report if the Legislature should not send us flying back toward the "dark ages".

 

Mr. Alvord still persists in his wicked conspiracy and refuses to give the least heed to reason or the demands of justice. As I feared in the first place, he is evidently determined to have his own way, be it right or wrong; and the only way for our restoration is to get the Senate to insert the appropriation and then outvote Alvord when it comes to the Assembly for concurrence. The only reason, so far as I can learn, that he gives for his course, is that he is opposed to appropriations by the State for scientific purposes. And yet he allows $10,000 to the State Museum - an appropriation for a purpose which he may think in a different category from mine, but I fail to see the difference. I believe this is only a pretext - not his real reason. The real cause he is probably ashamed to acknowledge.

 

I have strong hopes that the Senate at least will not countenance such injustice, for I can not look upon it in any other light than the virtual violation of the good faith of the State, which was pledged to the continuance of my work at least another year.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 16


 

Vol. 8 (111) [H 109]

 

Albany, Mar. 19th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of Mar. 11 I make out but few.

x17 is Exidia glandulosa Fr.

x19 Cytispora leucosperma - a form of Valsa ambiens Fr.

x20 Sphaeria Doliolum Pers.

x21 Myriangium Curtisii Tuck.

13 & x10 are lichens but I do not feel sure of the species.

 

The other numbers are "nil" or imperfect.

 

I regret that Uncle Sam should have thought it necessary to mash the fine Agarics of Mar. 12th. I think it a beautiful new species of the subgenus Lepiota.

 

Mar. 13

 

1 & 2 Cladosporium herbarum Tode -

x a, b, & 3 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

 

I was disappointed to find so few good things in the Muller specimens. I have placed a slip of paper with all that I deem nameable. The others are either no fungus at all or very imperfect. It is strange that such a well marked species as Phragmidium mucronatum should occur under three different names.

 

Thelephora Willeyi is all right. My last letter was written while I was confined to the house by sickness and in relying on memory I find I was in error in attributing Ag. cespitosus M.A.C. to the subgenus Clitocybe. I do not think it has ever been described. No! I am wrong. Curtis gives Lentinus caespitosus Berk. as being the same, and this is described in Lea's Catalogue.

 

Geoglossum atropurpureum according to Fries was first named Clavaria atropurpurea Batsch. and afterwards Fries put it in the genus Geoglossum. I should write it Geoglossum atropurpureum Batsch.

 

Tuckerman would say G. atropurpureum (Batsch.) Fr.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. Will return the Muller specimens in a day or two.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received March 20


 

Vol. 8 (112) [H 108]

 

Albany, Mar. 22nd, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of March 18th

x11 There are discolored spots but the fungus seems to be wanting.

x12 Two things - one imperfect, the other, Valsa centripeta Fr.

x13 Tympanis alnea Pers. but too old to be valuable.

14 Nothing good.

x15 Seems to be Cytispora leucosperma a form of Valsa.

x16 Valsa centripeta Fr. I have never seen this before and if you have it in quantity would like a little more. It is a handsome species.

x17 & 18 Apparently Leptostroma vulgare Fr. which is said to be an imperfect state of Hysterium commune.

 

The Senate Committee have restored the appropriation and we hope Alvord will not succeed in defeating its passage.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 23


 

Vol. 8 (113) [H 107]

 

Albany, Mar. 23d, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Your first installment of Mar. 18th did not reach me till after I had replied to the second.

x1 No fruit & uncertain

2 A fungus but not sufficiently developed for determination

x3 Some Cladosporium and some other things intermixed. I know not what.

x4 No fungus

x5 Undeveloped Polyporus

x6 No fruit and uncertain

x7 Coniothecium toruloideum B. & C.

x8 Cytispora fugax Fr. - a form of Valsa salicina.

x9 No fruit but probably Valsa salicina.

x10 Some Stereum - too old.

 

I also received from Dr. Howe, a few days ago, his "record of a few Molds" etc. which was the first intimation I had that he was about to engage in an independent line of publication of fungi from this State. I saw him but a few days before he sent the slip and he said nothing about it, from which I suppose he intended a little surprise. It is probably one of the Dr's little eccentric freaks, or perhaps he thinks there is more honor in publishing for himself than in having it done by others. I have promised him the privilege of naming any new species he might send me, but he seems to have declined the offer. The only species mentioned in his paper of which I have specimens from him is the M. Duby's Lev. I have already sent a special request for the others. Until I see his specimens it is scarcely possible to say how far I can agress with his determinations. So far as I can judge from his descriptions his Uncinula luculenta is a good species. His U. Americana is probably not specifically distinct from my U. Ampelopsidis as the only character he assigns to it wherein it differs is the greater length of the appendages, and as these are quite variable in my specimens this is scarcely a reliable specific distinction. If his specimens on Ampelopsis are the same as yours and mine I am very confident he is wrong in referring them to U. Wallrothii. Mine certainly do not agree with the description of U. Wallrothii neither are they at all "closely allied to U. adunca" as Cooke says U Wallrothii is. Dr. Howe is certainly unfortunate in classing his species among the molds.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 24


 

Vol. 8 (115) [H 104]

 

Albany, Mar. 28th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The little companion of Hexagonia carbonaria is sterile and indeterminable. The specks on carex leaves are nothing good.

 

Of Mar. 26

x1 The red belongs to the lichen - Physcia obscura v. erythrocordii

x2 Exidia glandulosa Fr.

x3 Sphaeria ulmea Schw.

x4 no fungus

x5 Imperfect

x6 & x10 Nothing good.

x7 Imperfect

8 Leptostroma vulgare Fr. Said to be a form of Hyst. commune

x9, x11, x12, x13, x14, x15 all imperfect and indeterminable.

x16 seems to be a Phoma but I am uncertain

x17 Sphaeria Tiliae Pers (in part)

x18 Too old.

 

Mr. Alberger's letter cheers me. I begin to think that Alvord is about the only unreasonable man in the Legislature and I guess he will fail in his base purpose. I am sure the case only needs a fair statement before the House to insure its support. We consider it sure enough in the Senate.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 29


 

Vol. 8 (117) [H 102]

 

Albany, Apr. 1st, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of Mar. 27 I would say thus

x1 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x2 & x4 forms of the same. It is as Fries says, a variable species.

x3 Polyporus adustus Fr.

x5 Daedalea unicolor Fr.

x6 Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

x7 No spores - too old

x8 No spores but it appears to be to be Sphaeria picea Pers.

x9 I sent this to Cooke and await his determination. I can hardly think it is Sphinctrina tigillaris.

x10 Too old. I do not recognize it.

 

Of Mar. 29

1 Is not in good condition

x2, 3, & 4 puzzle me. 3 has spores that ooze out as in Septoria, only in masses instead of in tendrils. I think it is a Septoria - aberrant and probably undescribed. 4 has filaments and spores resembling those of Cladosporium but they are covered by the cuticle of the leaf - a thing I have not before seen in a Cladosporium.

 

In the specimens I bought of Dr. Curtis I find Septoria Vitis B. & C. with spores thus [drawing]; also Septoria Viticola B. & C. with spores thus [drawing] whence I suppose they intend two species, though I find but one (the former) in Dr. C's Catalogue.

 

"Peziza granulata Bull" consists of a very few quite small specimens with orange disk which you sent a long time ago. I do not remember of ever giving them another name. You may have sent all you found as they were found in a flower pot.

 

I have heard from Cooke in reference to some of your specimens

4 Sept 10 Microsphaeria penicillata var. Coryli

B Oct 14 Microsphaeria penicillata var. Coryli

17 Sept. 23 Microsphaeria Dubyi Lev.

22 & 23 Oct. 22 on Alnus. Microsphaeria penicillata var. Alni ? = (Erysiphe

Alni Tul.) This he gives with a query. He will probably change it hereafter.

15 & 28 Oct. 22 Microsphaeria holosericea Lev. This is what I doubtfully referred to M. Grossulariae (on Astragalus Cooperi).

11 June 28  Peziza hesperidea C. & P. n. sp.

15 July 15  Peziza hesperidea C. & P. n. sp. This is the pretty red Peziza from Goat Island which I mistook for a form of P. coccinea.

 

After several unsuccessful attempts I succeeded this morning in finding Mr. Alberger and had an interview with him and Mr. Husted. Both were favorably disposed and will work for the restoration of the appropriation but it is pretty evident to my mind that Alvord means to fight it and will only yield to a majority against him. He has projudged the case and will not listen to a word of reason on it. He is extremely self-willed and if he has the power will certainly keep out the appropriation.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 2

 

[**15 July 15  Peziza hesperidea C. & P. n. sp. This is the pretty red Peziza from Goat Island which I mistook for a form of P. coccinea.** TYPE. But see letter no 167 below!]


 

Vol. 8 (120) [H 99]

 

Albany, Apr. 6th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 4

No. 1 This does not seem to be a fungus - at all events I can make out no definite structure.

2 Tubercularis vulgaris so far as I can see, but its habitat gives presumptive evidence that it may be the primary form of Nectria Ribis.

3 Dothidea crystallopora B. & C. I suspect Sphaeropsis Maclurae Curtis is only the conidioid state of this species.

 

No. 1 on Carex platyphylla I had received before and must have forgotten to mention it. I hope you got the letter in which I supposed I had mentioned it - for in it I reported Cooke's decision concerning two, or three of your specimens which had been in doubt or erroneously referred by me.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 7


 

Vol. 8 (123) [H 96]

 

Albany, Apr. 8th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 5th I think

1 is Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

2 & 3 probably a condition of the same thing.

4 & 5 imperfect and not determinable

 

On Vinca seems to be a Septoria but I find no such species described.

 

Apr. 6

1 I think is a lichen (young or imperfect)

2 Imperfect

3 Puccinia Graminis Pers. This form I have called var. brevicapra in my Synopsis of N.Y. Puccinia. The P. Andropagi Schw. is scarcely to be recognized from his description.

4 Imperfect

5 Coniocybe pallida (Pers.) Fr. A lichen

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. I saw Rev. J. A. Paine this morning. He sends his respects to you.

 

C.H.P.

 

Received Apr. 9


 

Vol. 8 (124) [H 95]

 

Albany, Apr. 9th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 7th

No. 1 Dinemasporium      I think an undescribed species.

2 Cladosporium on one leaf.

x3 Puccinia Caricis CD.

4 Imperfect - if Peziza Persoonii it is not well developed - no spores.

x5 Sterile and uncertain

x6 Looks like a Phoma but I do not find it described.

x7 & x12 Hypocrea Richardsonii B. & M.

x8 Imperfect

x9 Imperfect

x10 Seems to be the beginning of Irpex cinnamomeus

x11 Imperfect

x13 Phlebia zonata B. & C.

x14 Imperfect

x15 Daedalea unicolor Fr.

x16 Stereum striatum Fr.

 

If you choose to give a name to No. 1 please let me know what you will call it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 


 

Vol. 8 (128) [H 90]

 

Albany, Apr.10th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 8th

 

xNo. 3 I think is Glenospora Ramorum B. & C.. = (Demetium Ramorum Schw.)I find no fruit in the others and am not able to say what they are.

.

 

Of Apr. 9th

x1 Stictis            species uncertain.

x2 Not in very good condition but I should call it Physcia stellaris (L.) - a Lichen.

x3 Melanopsora Tremulae Lev.

x4,x5, & x6 are not good and uncertain.

x7  Puccinia angustata Pk. in Report of /71

x8 & x9 sterile and uncertain

x10 Peziza fascicularis A. & S.

x11 Cytispora chrysosperma Fr. - a form of Valsa nivea.

x12 Coniothecium toruloideum C. & C.

x13 Imperfect

x14 Hypoxylon Morsei B. & C.

x15 Returned

x16 Valsa           ?

x17 & x18 Valsa nivea Fr. but not in very good contition.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Apr. 18


 

Vol. 8 (129) [H 39]

 

Albany, April 12th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr 10th

No. 1 I fail to find the fungus.

x2 Stilbospora ovata Pers.

x3 Imperfect

x4 Sphaeropsis     species not determined

x5 Dinemasporium acerinum n. sp.

x6 Hendersonia Robiniae West.

x7 & x8 Not in determinable condition

x9 A scale insect.

 

I thought perhaps we should see you here to attend Mr. Corning's funeral. Will send the Report as you suggested.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 18


 

Vol. 8 (134) [H 84]

 

Albany, Apr. 23d, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The specimens of Apr 11 were sent to the Dead Letter Office at Washington and held for the want of a stamp until I forwarded the required postage, which will account for my delay in reporting on them.

 

 I makex1, x2 & x3 to be Tubercularia vulgaris Tode.

x4 Phoma longissimum Berk. (Sphaeria longissima Pers.)

x5 I have received this from several sources and sent it to Cooke long ago but he does not venture any decision on it. Suppose, to settle the matter at present, we call it Sphaeria diplodioides n. sp.

x6 Poor and not determinable

x7 Mere cells

x8 Imperfect

 

Of Apr. 22d I get not much good.

1 Is insect work - the gall of some Aphis.

2 I find no fungus

x3 Is much like Diatrype disciformis in external appearance but the spores are more like D. Duriaei. I have sent it  to Cooke for his opinion.

x4 & x5 Imperfect

 

Of Apr. 20th

1 Imperfect

2 Hypoxylon cohaerens Fr.

3 & 4 Hypoxylon argillaceum Fr.

x5 Too old.

x6 Imperfect

x7 Hyaterium but no spores

x8 Imperfect

9 Not determined

x10 Sphaeria Doliolum Fr.

20 Imperfect

 

Apr. 18th

x1 Undetermined

x2 Tubercularia vulgaris Toda.

x3 Not in good condition

x4 Not in good condition

x5 Sterile and indeterminable

x6 Seems to be an Epicoceum

x7 & x8 Imperfect.

x9 & x10 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

x11 Imperfect

x12 Polyporus betulinus Fr.

x13 & x14 Imperfect

x15 Septoria Herbarum B. & C.

x16 Frullania Eboracensis Lehm. (Hepatic)

x17 Cenangium triangulare Schw.

x18 & x19 Undetermined

x20 Sterile and not determined

x21 Imperfect

x22 Irpex Tulipiferae Schw. I think.

x23 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

x24 Tubercularia Celastri Schw. but I doubt if it is really distinct from T. vulgaris

x25 Imperfect

x26 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

x27 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

x28, x29 & x30 Imperfect

x31 Depazea Kalmicola Schm.

x32 Excrescence of Podisoma

x33 Lenzites tricolor Fr.?

x34 Phoma brunneo-tinctum B. & C.

x35 Exidia glandulosa Fr.

x36 Valsa stellulata Fr.

x37 & x38 imperfect                  

x39 Streptothrix atra B. & C.

x40 Not determined.

41 Stereum acerinum Fr.

x42 Stegonosporium betulinum Pk. in. ed.

x43 Stereum complicatum Fr.

x44 Poor.

 

x Mr. Cooke gives your No. 7 March 1st as Sphaeria mutans C. & P., a new species.

 

Our appropriations have passed the Senate all right, but a committee of conference was called for in the assembly. Alvord is doing his best to defeat us and I greatly fear he will accomplish his purpose. He is as unreasonable and obstinate as he well can be. The thing I suppose will be decided in a day or two. We probably shall fail for the lack of a single vote in the committee - so near it seems a great pity.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 25


 

 

Vol. 8 (135) [H 83]

 

Albany, Apr. 24th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Since my gloomy conjectures of yesterday, the clouds have broken away. Gov. Seymour made his appearance just at the critical moment, saw some of the Assembly members of the Conference Committee and this morning was before the Committee iself, and has just brought word that the appropriation for botanist has passed the Committee all right. I feel glorious again, and hardly know how to express my gratitude to my friends who have so generously come to my rescue in this case.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 25


 

Vol. 8 (137) [H 81]

 

Albany, Apr. 26th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

 x1 Sterile and uncertain

x2 No fruit and nothing to indicate whether it is a fungus or a part of the lichen.

x3 Spores but no asci. I suspect it is a form of Sphaeria lagenaria.

x4 Polyporus but species uncertain

x5 Hysterium       Can you send some more of this? I wish to try Cooke on it.

x6 Imperfect

x7 & x8 Imperfect

x9 Seems to be Orthotrichum crispum or crispulum. No good capsules.

x10 Diatrype (Diatrypella) betulina Pk. in Ed.

11 No spores and uncertain

x12 Too young

x13 Very poor but looks like a Cenarigium.

x14, x15 & x16 Imperfect

x17 Corticium but I am not sure of the species.

x18 Imperfect

x19 & x21 Cooke names this Diatrype brunnea C. & P. I had supposed it was D. obesa B. & C. but they not having described their species I suppose have left it very uncertain what it is.

x20 Seems to be Valsa Pini A. & C. but the yellow stroma is not shown by it, hence it is in some doubt.

 

A very unsatisfactory report but the best I can do at present. There are a multitude of  minute black atoms on fallen leaves and dead herbaceous stems that I have examined time and again but almost always without finding any trace of fruit. I suppose them to be mere beginnings or imperfect states of various Sphaerias.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received [no notation of date received]


 

Vol. 8 (139) [H 79]

 

Albany, Apr. 29th, 1872

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 26th

1 & 2 I find some Cladosporium threads and spores, but get no satisfaction out of either.

3 This according to specimens from Dr. Curtis is Massaria macrospora B. & C. It is apparently the same as Massaria gigaspora Desm. which Cooke gives as synonymous with M. inguinans Tode. Not being satisfied about this I sent it to Cooke some time ago and await his reply.

4 I get no fungus here. It seems to be a singular gummy exudation.

 

Apr. 27

"The first of the Agarics" Cortinarius (Hygrocybe) vernalis Pk. See 23 Rep. p. 112

Cooke has named your 1 & 2 March 6 thus Colpoma juniperinum C. & P.

3 Marc. 6th Diatrype disciformis Fr.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 1