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)

 

1873

 


 

Vol. 9 (74) [C 157]

 

Albany, Jan. 27th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Fowler's specimens

1 Dermatea furfuracea, formerly. In Handbook it is Peziza furfuracea Fr.

section Encaelia.

2 Calicium subtile as you have it.

3 & 25 Dothidea Trifolii Fr. (no spores)

4 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode formerly, now deemed a form of Nectria

cinnabarina Fr.

6 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

7 Pertusaria velata (Turn.) Nyl. (a lichen)

12 Tremella foliacea Pers.

14 Hysterium pulicare Fr.

16 A doubtful affair.

17 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull. = (Hypoxylon fragiforme Fr.)

18 Polyporus scutellatus Schw.

19 Plicatura Alni Pk. 24th Rep. p. 76

20 Hymenochaete rubiginosa Lev. as given in Handbook, formerly Stereum rubiginosum Fr.

21 Erineum luteolum on lower surface of leaf. One spot of Rhytisma acernum on the upper surface.

22 Insect work

23 Imperfect.

 

The omitted numbers I did not find in the packet.

 

I forgot to say that I retained your packet of Sphaerias, Blake Coll., for further examination. There were some things that I think may be determined by taking more time, that otherwise must remain "incog".

 

Please accept my hearty thanks for your most favorable notice of my work before the Board of Regents.

 

What does Senator Bowen mean by proposing to abolish the Board of Regents? I suppose that had been tried sufficiently some time ago.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Jan. 18


 

 

Vol. 9 (78) [C 152]

 

Albany, Jan. 21st, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The fellow on pigweed is Phoma longissimum Berk. Handbook Vol. 1. p, 421 = (Sphaeria longissima Pers.)

 

No Report later than the 22nd has been issued, but I thought you had advance copies of my part of the 23d & 24th. If not I can yet furnish you with one of the 23d but have no more of the 24th.

 

Did the descriptions of Cuban Fungi reach you? I had started them before I got your note telling me I need not send them.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Jan. 22


 

Vol. 9 (88) [C 142]

 

Albany, Feb. 13th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have seen a copy of the Appropriation Bill, as reported and I am pleased to say that the item for compensation of botanist is in all right. I confess I had some fears on this point, and I cannot help feeling that this continuation is in great measure if not wholly due to your efforts. I want to thank you most heartily for such earnest and successful efforts in this matter. Prof. Hall too feels joyous. They have only reduced the appropriation for drawings five hundred dollars, although he expected it would be cut out altogether.

 

I feel like taking fresh courage and a new start.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 14


 

Vol. 9 (97) [C 133]

 

Albany, 22d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The specimens of Feb. 20 from a garden pot in greenhouse is probably a Peziza but I do not find it fertile.

 

I have looked over Blake's Sphaerias. In some cases the generic name only needed changing. Such as I have altered or as I thought you would want I return.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 24


 

Vol. 9 (101) [C 129]

 

Albany, Feb. 26th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Blake's specimen, marked A is Sphaeria Collinsii Schw. At all events it agrees with his description of that species. It is an interesting species but the specimens do not afford perfect fruit.

 

Fowler's Specimens

x1 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode. Now considered the conidia of Nectria cinnabarina

-2 & 3 Cenangium Pinastri Fr.

x4 Calicium Curtisii Tuck. (A lichen)

x5 Clavaria fusiformis Sow.

x6 Hirneola Auricula-Judae Berk. in Handbook. (Exidia Auricula-Judae Fr.)

x7 A small tuft of Alectoria jubata L. and some imperfect Sphaeria or other fungus.

x8 Dothidea graminis Fr.

x9 Ustilago urveolorum Ful. [?uveolorum?]

x10 & 11 Panus stipticus Bull.

x12 Seemingly a Peziza but it came all broken up and I do not recognise it.

x13 Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw.

14 & x15 Polyporus laceratus Berk.

x16 Daedalea cinerea Fr.

x17 Grandinia alutacea B. & R.

x18 Polyporus ferruginosus Schrad.?

x19 Old, discolored and uncertain

x20 Sphaeria ulmea Schw. I suspect this may be Dothidea ulmi of the Handbook but it does not agree (as well as I would like) with the description in the Handbook.

x21 Septoria    species uncertain

x22 Uromyces Limonii Lev.

x23 Erineum fagineum Pers.

x24 Erineum roseum Schultz

 

The winter is indeed severe and I long for spring to come. These harsh winters and excessively hot summers try the constitutions of men.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Feb. 27


 

 

Vol. 9 (104) [C 126]

 

Albany, Mar. 6th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Mr. Cowles mosses are 8 Pylaisaea intricata Hedw.

 

                      9 Orthotrichum speciosum Nees. ?

 

                      10 Ceratodon purpureus Brid.

The fruit of No. 9 is not very good and it is therefore best to leave it in doubt till better is found before deciding fully, though I have scarcely a doubt of its identity.

 

Mr. Warne sends from Chicago a new willow - Salix adenophylla Herbst. resembling S. cordata in external appearance. Mr. Puissant sends a specimen of Verbena bracteosa Michx. found at West Troy.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 7


 

 

Vol. 9 (112) [C 118]

 

Albany, Mar. 17th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I return the specimens with labels named so far as I am able to do it.

 

Of the Volcano specimens I regret that I am able to recognize so few.

1 Pogonatum alpinum Brid.

3 Hypnum tamariscinum Hedw.

12 Hypnum Schreberi Willd.

14 Neckera pennata var.? The noticeable differences are branches longer and less regular, fruit less abundant, leaves serrulate toward the apex, perichaetial leaves longer pointed. Possibly some would consider it a distinct species.

 

I suspect there may be one or two new species among the remainder but it is unsatisfactory dealing with them in the absence of fruit.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received March 18


 

Vol. 9 (114) [C 116]

 

Albany, March 18th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have not Hobkirk's Synopsis of British Mosses and would most certainly be glad to get your spare copy. Although I have dwelt so closely to fungi my old-time enthusiasm for Mosses occasionally revives and only the pressure of other thoughts keeps it down.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received [no date noted]


 

Vol. 9 (116) [C 114]

 

Albany, Mar. 19th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

It is no difficult matter to confound two mosses so closely resembling each other as do H. tamiscinum and H. delicatulum. I send a bit of each with opercula or lids on the capsules. Placing them side by side you will see what is regarded as the most available character for separating them, viz. the difference in the lids. The lid of H. delicatulum in some descriptions is given as conic-acuminate which is really more accurate for our specimens than "conical" I think, however, that in the dried specimens the acumination is more prominent than in fresh or soaked specimens. The other point of difference between the two species is in the perichaetial leaves - "fringed" in tamariscinum, not fringed in delicatulum. The character of the ramification though an indication is not always to be relied on so that without the fruit I never feel perfectly secure in trying to separate these two mosses.

 

I do the most of my microscopic work with two powers - 1st a 1 1/2 inch objective with B eye piece, magnifying about 50 diameters, for all coarser objects, as perithecia etc. 2nd a 1/5 inch objective with B eye piece for spores. This gives a magnifying power of about 400 diameters, which in most cases is all that is necessary and it is more convenient working than with higher powers.

 

For the spores of fungi I generally moisten with a drop of water after I have placed them on the slide. Use enough water to flow nicely around the object and give a clear field, but not enough to flow out and above the thin glass cover. It swells out the spore and gives a clearer view of its shape. It is also good to soften tissues and render flexible the leaves of mosses. Care must be taken with high powers not to get the object too large - the merest trifle is enough. You would do well to practice a little with the larger spores at first, such as those of the Puccinias, Uredos etc.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P.S. Of course with the higher powers your object must be very thin and the thin glass cover pressed down close to the slide. If in working you should meet with any difficulty inform me what it is and I will gladly do what I can to help you overcome it.

 

Received March 18


 

 

Vol. 9 (118) [C 112]

 

Albany, Mar. 22d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The Synopsis of British Mosses is received and I have looked it over with great interest. Very many thanks for your kindness. I think there must be a few more mosses in the Adirondack region yet to be detected. I have half a mind to try them once more early in the season when my mind will be less occupied with fungi. I return the moss from Schimper's Coll. with name.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 23


 

Vol. 9 (125) [C 105]

 

Albany, Apr. 4th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The specimen of Apr. 2nd on willow seems to be Stereum purpureum Fr. old and faded.

 

Thanks for the copy of your interesting address. I am especially delighted to learn of the magnitude of the Herbarium of the Society, and a little surprised withall for I had no idea it was so large.

 

Your energy and enthusiasm seems to be boundless.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received A[/ 25


 

Vol. 9 (130) [C 100]

 

Albany, Apr. 12th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

No 1 not being a botanical specimen I turned over to Prof. Hall who thought he might be able to find out its name.

No. 2 is a Didymodon near D. rubellus but a distinct species I think. I do not find any specimen or description that agrees with it exactly.

3 This I think is Hendersonia Theaecola Cooke [Grevillea, Dec. p. 90] The perithecia appear to be on only one side of the leaf, otherwise it seems to agree.

4 Insect work. There are mites on the leaves which probably give them the " mildewed" appearance.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 13


 

Vol. 9 (131) [C 99]

 

Albany, Apr. 14th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

"A" Apr. 12 From tanbark in a conservatory" I consider Agaricus (Lepiota) cepoestipes Sow. though the stem is not clearly swollen in the middle so far as these dry specimens show.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 15


 

Vol. 9 (133) [C 97]

 

Albany, Apr. 15th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The Sclerotium of Apr. 14th is not described in Fries. It comes between S. excentricum and S. Semen - perhaps a modified form of one or the other. Cooke seems to consider them compact growths of mycelium - not perfect fungi.

 

I could find no terminal appendages to the spores of the fungus on C amellia leaves, hence could not refer it to Pestalozzia, although its habitat pointed in that direction.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 17


 

 

Vol. 9 (138) [C 92]

 

Albany, Apr. 19th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

It is not possible to determine the specimen from Dr. Torrey. It has been pressed to death but appears as if a Craterellus or perhaps Cantharellus.

 

The Mosses of Apr. 16th do look refreshing.

1 Schistidium apocarpum Br. & Sch. (Grimmia apocarpa in Hobkirk)

2 Orthotrichum anomalum Hedwig.

 

Apr. 18th

x1 Appears like a young Peziza but is without fruit and must remain "uncertain."

2 I find flocci and spores as in Cladosporium but they are under the cuticle - a singular place for a Cladosporium.

x3 Valsa nivea Fr. (but not in very good condition)

4 & 5 are as much puzzlers as ever.

x6 Probably Hysterium tortile Schw. but in wretched condition.

7 In statu quo.

8 I do not think it a lichen, but a fungus. I do not know just where to refer it. Wish you might find more of it.

x9 In statu quo.

x10 Microthyrium Smilacis DeNot according to Dr. Curtis, but I never found it fertile.

x11 I think is Irpex paradoxus Schrad. - new to us. Can you get more.

12 Aecidium       ?

13 Not determined

x14 Valsa profusa Fr. According to Cooke, but in miserable condition.

x15 Some imperfect Nectria

x16-21 Are waiting Cookes report. He wrote me some time ago that he was waiting for Berkeley to get through with his notices of North American Fungi, then he (Cooke) would take up my sendings and give them in Grevillea.

 

I am glad to hear you are going to issue a Bulletin.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton

Received Ap. 20

 

[To find Grevillea]


 

-

Vol. 9 (139) [C 91]

 

Albany, 23d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 20th

1 "On Oak" seems to be two lichens

 

Lecanora subfusca reddish (sterile)

 

Buellia parasema black

2 Sterile & uncertain

x3 Macrosporium sarcinula B. & Br. given also (in Handbook) as a form of Sphaeria herbarum.

 

Apr. 22nd

Mosses and strings of cells - Torula-like but I am unable to locate it exactly.

 

Apr. 25th

 

I return scraps of the second installment of Oregon Mosses. The one marked "Hypnum Neckeroides" with a query is an interesting thing. It is related to Hypnum Alleghaniense under which in Icones, p. 161 Sullivant puts Hypnum neckeroides Hook. as a synonym but with an added remark that indicates  slight doubt; saying that the inflorescence is dioecious in H. Neckeroides. In your specimens the inflorescence is dioecious, the perichaetial leaves are costate, and the stem leaves are longer pointed and spinulose-serrate, three characters in which it differs from Hypnum Alleghaniense, so that I believe it a distinct species, and if not Hypnum neckeroides then a new species. I have no authentic specimens of H.Neckeroides for comparison. I have retained the fertile specimen which was in a separate piece of paper, but will return it if you wish. I wish it were possible to get more of this in good fruiting condition.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P.S. Lesquereux says in Catalogue of Pacific Coast Mosses that Hypnum Neckeroides of Drummond Coll. No. 119 is the same as Hyp. Alleghaniense but that Hypnum Neckeroides Hook. from New Zealand is different but not yet found in this country.

 

Received Ap. 26


 

Vol. 9 (142) [C 88]

 

Albany, Apr. 28th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 24th

x1 Hypoxylon     Young or imperfect may be either fuscum cohaerens or argilla

2 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull.

x3 Cheirospora botryospora Fr. Pretty under the microscope.

x4 Tympanis alnea Pers.

5 Nothing good

x6 A lichen, probably Opegrapha varia.

x7 Polyporus       ?

x8 Diatrype brunnea C. & P. I suspect it is Diatrype obesa B. & C. but Cooke named it for me as above. Berkeley's description when he gets to it will doubtless settle the matter.

x9 Seems to be a lichen - Pyrenula, but I am not sure of the species.

x10 Hysterium         Awaiting Cooke's decision.

x11 Sphaeria limaeformis Schw.

x12 Scorias spongiosa Schw.

x13 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev.

x14 Hypoxylon cohaerens Fr.

x15 Hysterium, sterile & uncertain.

x16 Lichenous crust

 

Apr. 25th

x1 Aecidium claytoniatum Schw.

2 Unknown

x3 Scorias spongiosa Schw.

x4 Penicillium crustaceum Fr.

x5 Nothing good.

x6 Irpex Tulipiferae Schw.

x7 Old Lycoperdon. I have seen it before but believe it to be an undescribed species. I hope the coming season to make a revision of this genus. We have more species than has been supposed.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Ap. 29


 

Vol. 9 (144) [C 86]

 

Albany, Apr. 30th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Neither specimen of Apr. 26th is fertile and hence both are indeterminable.

 

In the package of Mosses of Apr. 28th I find

Hypnum lutescens     l

Hypnum crispifolium  l

Hypnum triquetrum    l ---- repeated

Hypnum Oreganum      l

Hypnum myosuroides   l

 

Hypnum splendens Hedw.          l

Hypnum Nuttallii Wils.          l

Antitrichia curtipendula Brid.  l -- New ones

Antitrichia Californica Sullliv.l

Neckera Douglassii Hook.        l

 

Of these I return samples as you request. Wrights Fungi are at hand but not yet opened. Judging from the size of the bundle it will take a little time to go through it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received May 1


 

Vol. 9 (154) [C 76]

 

Albany, May [no day] 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I am unable to get any satisfaction out of the specimens of May 2nd.

1 is a Hydnum but I can not say what species

2 Looks Rhytisma-like but is without any trace of fruit and may after all be a gall.

3 I detect no fungus.

 

I have looked through the Wright Coll. and named such as I could. Most of those in white papers were well named so far as I could recognize them. Many were in such a condition that I could not tell whether right or wrong. These I left just as I found them, with the name which was probably given by the aid of an accompanying description. I will return the package to you in a day or two.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

 

P. S. of May 4

 

1 Imperfect

 

2 Opegrapha varia (Pers.) Fr. Lichen.

 

3 Cytispora leucosperma Fr. said to be a state of Valsa ambiens Fr.

 

Received May 10


 

 

Vol. 9 (156) [C 74]

 

Albany, May 13th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

May 12th

x1 Xylaria polymorpha Grev.

x2 Urnula Craterium Fr.

x3 Frullania Grayana (Mont. (Hepatic)

x4 Torula    sp. uncertain

x5 Stereum hirsutum Fr.

x6 Probably Helvella esculenta, but sterile & badly mashed

x7 Has the form of Ditiola radicata but does not agree with the description. Uncertain what it is

x8 Depasea Kalmicola Schw.

x9 Imperfect

x10 Imperfect

x11 Imperfect

x12 Polyporus brumalis Fr.

x13 Uncertain

x14 Uncertain

x15 Cenangium prunastri Fr.

x16 Valsa Colliculus Warnst.

x17 Septonema spilomeum Berk.

x18 Sphaeria limaeformis Schw.

x19 Imperfect

x20 Sterile & Uncertain

 

I have not yet received the Bulletin you mentionied in your note of the 6th instant. Thanks for the kind offer to publish in it new species of fungi. I scarcely know what to say in regard to it. I certainly wish they might be published promptly. Already two names which I had given to new species, have been appropriated by others while my species have been waiting for publication, but it is a delicate matter to deal with. Prof. Hall has long been talking about issuing a Bulletin and if he should do it I suppose all my material would have to go there. If he should not then perhaps he would not grumble if descriptions of new species went elsewhere. At any rate I expect soon to be busy in the field and would not have much if anything to communicate right away, unless past reports yet unpublished should be drawn upon.

 

Wee, Parsons & Co. have done the illustrations for the Reports. The coloring costs 7 cents a plate. I am ignorant of the cost of lithographing. On account of the expense and the grumbling or rather objections of the Controller to illustrations I omitted them entirely from the last report. I think best to tide over bad places as easily as possible.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received May 14


 

Vol. 9 (159) [C 70]

 

Albany, May 16th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

May 14th

 

In one envelope is

x1 Nectria Celastri (Schw.) C. & P. (Sphaeria Celastri Schw.)

x2 Ditiola radicata Fr. Probably "7 May 12" is the same in younger state.

Fries remarks that this sometimes so closely resembles Dacrymyces stillatus as scarcely to be separated from it.

   -------------------

 

In the other envelope is

x1 Agaricus (Collybia) velutipes Curt.

x2 Physcomitrium pyriforme B. & S.

x3 Polyporus versicolor Fr. Probably. - It is too old.

x4 Cytispora chrysosperma Fr. A form of Valsa nivea

5 Uncertain

6 Only filaments.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 18


 

Vol. 9 (162) [C 67]

 

Albany, May 20th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 16

1 is a Hysterium but I am uncertain of the species, as the spores seem scarce and imperfect.

2 Leptostroma filicinum Fr. said to be an incomplete state of Dothidea filicina Fr.

3 Sphaeria Sarraceniae Schw.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 21


 

Vol. 9 (169) [C 60]

 

Albany, May 26th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 19th

x1 Diatrype brunnea C. & P. but I suspect it is D. obesa B. & C. When Berkeley gives us the description of their D. obesa we will be able to decide which name must be retained.

x2 Polyporus      species uncertain

x3 Helvella esculenta Pers. = Gyromitra esculenta Fr. in the Handbook.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 27


 

Vol. 9 (171) [C 58]

 

Albany, May 27th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 24th

x1 No well developed fungus

x2 Ustilago - probably a new species. Secure all you can of it.

x3 Imperfect & uncertain

x4 Merulius species incerta.

 

May 25th

x1 I think a Bryum but it is not easy to say what species in this sterile condition.

x2, x3 & x4 are all sterile and uncertain but Sphaeria like in appearance.

 

The copy of the Bulletin is received. It is a good beginning, and

evinces much energy and activity on the part of Mr. Grote.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received [no receipt date mentioned]

 

[See letters of Augustus R. Grote, Esq.


 

Vol. 9 (174) [C 55]

 

Albany, May 31st, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I will make up for you a paper of new species of fungi and send it if possible before next Saturday.

 

Prof. Hall says he does not find the specimen you sent described in any of his books but will try to get its name form Prof. Agassiz.

 

I will include a description of your Ustilago on Erythronium leaves in the paper on fungi and leave the specific name to be inserted by you as you are its discoverer.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received June 1


 

Vol. 9 (179) [C 48]

 

Albany, June 5th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have hastily copied the descriptions of the new species of fungi which it seems to me desirable to have published in advance of the Reports, and send them to you. I have consulted with Prof. Hall in regard to the matter and he says he considers it a good thing to do.

 

I have sometimes added a remark or two to the descriptions when I thought it was desirable, but the paper is so excessibely long that you may drop these all out if you think best. I have tried to make it as brief as I could but I fear both you and the Society will be outrageously bored if you attempt to read the paper except by title. There are about a hundred and forty species described in it. Should your printer find any difficulty in procurring type for the accent points I have used in designating inches and lines it will not be difficult to substitute the words for the characters; thus instead of 2'-3' high it can be 2-3 inches high & 2"-3: thick it can be 2-3 lines thick.

 

I am not at all particular about correcting the proof should the Society conclude to publish it, but if you should wish me to I would be glad to have it as soon as possible for I am intending soon to take a trip for collecting. If you think there is too much of it to go in one number of the Bulletin you are at liberty to cut it up and take it piecemeal or do anything you think best with it.

 

I have not yet had time to examine your specimens of May 30th.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 6

 

[Note: William T. Stearn wrote (p. 112 "Before adoption of the metric system, devised in France at the end of the eighteenth century, authors used the traditional units based on the human body such as the foot (pes), the span (spithama) [i.e. the distance between the tips of the thumb and the index finger when extended) , etc. Linnaeus's Philosophia botanica, 262, no. 331 (1751) provides a convenient summary: ... Linea = Linea una Mensurae perisinae = 2.25 mm." The inch, by the way, is the "Pollex (i.e. the length of the terminal joint of the thumb) = Uncia una parisina = 1 Paris inch = 12 lines = 2.7 cm. = 1 1/12 inch (approx.)" (p. 113).  Botanical Latin, History, Grammar, Syntax, Terminology and Vocabulary. Ed. 3. David & Charles, London.]


 

-

Vol. 9 (185) [C 42]

 

Albany, June 10th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of June 7th

x1 Sphaeronema Spina (Schw.)

2 Appears to be a lichen but I dare not try to locate it.

x3 Septonema spilomeum Berk.

4 Seems licheny but I don't know it.

x5 Diatrype and Cenangium mixed but neither in nameable condition.

x6 Hysterium but no fruit & uncertain.

x7 Diatrype brunnea C. & P. according to Cooke, but it seems to me scarcely to differ from Curtis specimens of Diatrype obesa B. & C.

 

The bright colored specimen on Rubus leaves is Uredo luminata S...

 

I am thankful for the Ustilago Erythronii

 

I make out nothing for the specimens of May 30th.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 11


 

Vol. 9 (192) [C 35]

 

Albany, June 16th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I return the Texan fungi separated.

 

The specimen from Nassau which I took to be a Polyzoa or Sertularia [=Setularia?] and which Prof. Hall sent to Agassiz was returned without name but with the opinion that it was a seaweed described in Harvey's Nereis. I dissolved away the lime from a bit of it and the structure seems to me to be that of a Halimeda but I do not find it satisfactorily described. The abrupt contraction at the tips of the branchlets gives it the appearance of being incrusted almost entirely by some polyzoa, and the porous appearance of the surface supports this notion. Its general external look is much like Corallina except the pores, so that amid all this confusion and deception it is not easy to say just what it is. Were I to give a rough guess I should say it was some old Halimeda incrusted by some polyzoa, but in this I may not be right after all. I do not remember whether it was marked "No duplicate" or not but will return it.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 18

 

[Note here some hint as to arrangement for the disposition of specimens between the two men. Albany was to receive only the duplicates. Where are the unicates at BUF?]


 

Vol. 9 (197) [C 28]

 

Albany, June 21st, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

"No 1 May 24" is very near to if not specifically the same as "phoma depressum B. & C." among my Curtisian specimens. I do not find the species mentioned in Curtis's Catalogue. This specimen is on roots of ash and the spores are a mere trifle smaller than in yours. These are the only differences I see.

-----------------------

 

June 19th

1 Mnium affine Bland.

2 Bryum nutans Schreb.

3 Sterile and uncertain.   The other I return.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. The specimens for Col. [Cal.?] Coll. Herbarium mentioned in your note of the 16th instant have not yet made their appearance. I went to the Express office this morning and inquired for them but did not find them.

 

C. H. P.

[on front margin] "Phoma depressum B. & C." Wright Coll. is a very different thing. We must wait for Berkeley to describe before their species can be certainly known.

 

Received June 22


 

-

Vol. 9 (200) [C 25]

 

Albany, June 27th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the specimens of Hypnum neckeroides and Fontinalis.

 

The Aecidium of June 23 from Squaw island is probably undescribed. I do not find any noticed on Calystegia leaves. It certainly can not be Ae. Convolvulatum Schw. In its characters it does not differ sharply from Ae. Compositarum but its habitat is very different.

 

I expect to get off next week. After waiting till the appropriation in the supply bill for the reimbursement of my last years expenses should be payable I found that by some legerdamain it had been dropped out, although I am quite sure it passed both houses. The appropriation for my salary however is all right and I must do as well as I can without the other.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received June 29


 

 

Vol. 9 (205) [C 19]

 

Albany, July 23d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the specimens of July 21st

1 is Cenangium Berasi Fr.

x2 is only an insect production but I suspect it is what Schweinitz describes as Rhytisma Asteris.

x3 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev. but fruit immature.

x5 Probably Xylaria Hypoxylon but yet in its young state.

x4 A Sphaeria but I must look further before deciding on the species.

x6 Peziza granulata Bull.

 

The little masses adhering to the feet of the insects and which I suppose you considered a fungus are the pollen-masses of Asclepias flowers. At least I find no fungus  on the insects.

 

July 22nd.

Uredo effusa Strauss on Rose fruit.

 

I did not have very great success in my trip after specimens though I found one or two very interesting things. I shall try again soon.

 

The papers you mention have not yet had time to reach me, but I am very grateful for the kindness. I had no right to expect such liberal treatment and will pay for the copies if you will set a price on them. I shall not need the 5 copies you mention as the others will be all I can well afford at present to distribute.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received July 28


 

Vol. 9 (210) [C 13]

 

Albany, Aug. 4th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Specimens July 30th

x1 Hypoxylon Morseii B. & C. (fide Curtis specimens)

x2 Aecidium Iridis Gerard. as you suppose.

x3 Aecidium tenue Schw. as you suppose.

x4 No fungus

x5 Uromyces - probably a new species.

x6 Rhytisma Andromedae Fr.

x7 Paludella squarrosa L.

x8 Imperfect - seems a Tubercularia which would only be a form of some Nectria.

x9 & x11 Not determinable

x10 Pistillaria Muscicola Fr.

x12 Puccinia - I think a new species. It would be well to give names to this and 5, and save a good supply of specimens of them.

 

The copies of the "New Species of Fungi" are at hand. I am delighted and cannot thank you and the Buffalo Society enough. Long may you flourish.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Aug. 5

 

[It appears that the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences published a text written by Peck entitled, more or less, “New Species of Fungi.” It appears that the first of the Society’s bulletins had just been published, and this text of Peck’s constitued the fifth  part of the first bulletin:

Peck, Charles Horton. 1873. “V. Descriptions of new species of fungi.” Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Science I: 41-72. ]


 

 

Vol. 10 (3) [A 339 -two sheets, first one has no "A" code]

 

Albany, Sept. 6th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have just returned from the mountains. Fungi were scarce but I found a few good things. Among my acquisitions is a Lycopodium of which I feel proud. I am not yet satisfied whether it is a described species or not, probably it is but it certainly is new to our flora.

 

I send names of your specimens so far as I am able.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

[second sheet]

 

Aug. 12

1 Piggotia astroidea B. & Br. It is said also to be a form of Dothidea ulmi Fr. and is probably = to Sphaeria Ulmea Schw.

2 Lentinus Lecomtei Fr.

x3 Torula stilbospora Cd. = Coniothecium toruloideum B. & C.

x5 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

x4 & x 6 Undetermined

 

Aug. 17

 

xA Sterile & uncertain

 

Aug 21

x1 Conotrema urceolatum Tuck. (Returned)

x2 Seems a lichen, but I do not know it.

x3 Pylaisaea intricata Hedw. [A moss]

x4 Uredo Smilacis Schw.

 

Aug 22

x1 Pestalozzia      - with a single bristle at the apex; probably an undescribed species. Can you get more and give it a name.

x2 Uredo Agrimoniae Schw. Dr. Curtis deemed it the same as Uredo Potentillarum CD. and he is probably right, at least the difference is slight.

 

Aug. 26.

x1, x2 & x3. I am able to make nothing of these.

 

Aug. 27

xA No fungus

xB Septoria       I have often picked this but could never muster courage to name and describe it.

 

Sept. 2nd.

x1 Astereum complicatum Fr.

x3 Aspergillus glaucus Lk.

x4 Patellaria indigotica C. & P.

x6 Roestelia aurantiaca Pk.

x9 Imperfect

x10 Coryneum clavaesporum Pk.

x11 Uromyces Euphorbiae C. & P.

x13 Lycoperdon pusillum Fr.

x14 Hygrophorus miniatus?

x15 Agaricus (Clitocybe) ochropurpureus Berk.

x16 Too young.

x17 Tulostoma fimbriatum Fr.

x18 Polyporus         ?

x19 Uredo Potentillarum DC.

x20 = 2 Aug. 22

 

2, 5, 8, 12 Not determined.

 

  Received Sept 10


 

 

Vol. 10 (25) [A 314]

 

Albany, Sept. 30th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Yours of yesterday, as well as several others yet unopened, is at hand. All is well with me and your specimens are not in my way, but shall be attended to soon. My silence has been entirely due to absence, having just returned late last night from a two weeks trip to Sullivan County. I do not expect to be absent again this season.

 

Rhododendron maximum is very plenty in the low grounds of Forestburgh. I found the Arceuthobium three also on spruce and what is more interesting, a fungus on it: parasite on parasite.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 1


 

Vol. 10 (29) [A 310]

 

Albany, Oct. 3d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Sept. 12

x1 Polyporus perennis Fr.

2 Illosporium roseum Fr.

x3 Seems some imperfect Stereum.

x4 Diatrype atropunctata Schw.

x5 Sepedonium chrysospermum Lk.

x7 Undetermined

x8 Anomodon attenuatus & unknown sulphur-colored powder.

x9 Crucibulum vulgare Tul.

x10 Seems imperfect Valsa leucostoma Fr.

x11 & x12 Imperfect

13 Stereum hirsutum?

14 Stereum albobadium?

x15 Opegrapha varia?

16 Undetermined

x17 Microsphaera Vaccinii Pk. (23d Report)

x18 Undetermined

x19 Puccinia coronata (Cd.) & its Uredo form

x20 Puccinia Graminis Pers.

x21 Ustilago Carbo Tul. according to the modern rendering. We used to call it U. segetum Ditm.

 

Sept. 14th

x2 Hygrophorus miniatus Fr.

x3 Oidium fructigenum Schrad.

x6 Puccinia Menthae Pers.

x7 Erineum  Not now deemed a fungus

x11 Rhytisma species uncertain.

x14 I find only natural scales on the leaf. The others are imperfect or indeterminable.

 

Sept. 15

I make out only

x3 Trichobasis Rubigo-verra, which probably includes the Uredo-form of both Puccinia graminis & P. coronata.

x4 Cystopus cubicus Str.

x"A" Tubercularia vulgaris Tode, a form of Nectria cinnabarina

 

Sept. 17

Not determined. The Hepaticae from Fayal look new to me. Had I not better send them to Mr. Austin to name?

 

Sept. 22nd

x1 Erysiphe Martii Lk.

x2 Stilbum giganteum Pk. 24th Report.

 

Mr. Ellis has recently sent me this labeled "Coryne Ellisii Berk." saying it is described in the Sept. number of "Grevilea", but the description there given of Coryne Ellisii B. & C. would never be understood by an "outsider" to mean this plant, so far is it from correct.

x3 Sporidesmium Lingula B. & C. according to Dr. Curtis's specimens. Berkeley will probably describe it under this name in due time. It is new to our flora Have you more to spare?

4 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr.

x5 Undetermined

x6 The Hepatic is Lophocolea bidentata Nees. The moss too meagre, the fungus too old to name.

x7 Spathularia flavida Pers.

x8 Bulgaria sarcoides Fr.

x9 Peziza scutellata L.

 

Sept. 25

I do not make much out of these most of them being barren, old or imperfect.

x4 Seems a state of Valsa leucostoma Fr.

x6 Geaster saccatus Fr.

x7 May be a dwarf form of the same but I do not know.

x10 Perhaps Schweinitz's Peziza Erineum.

x18 Sent to Cooke long ago but I suppose we shall get no more determinations from him till Berkeley gets through his Notices of N. A. Fungi.

x22 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

 

Sept. 26 The only certain thing here is

x10 Trogia crispa in the Handbook, formerly Cantharellus crispus Fr.

 

Sept. 29

x1 Undetermined

2 Hypnum imponens - the black on it, if a fungus which I doubt, is very imperfect.

x3 A lichen old and poor. I have not looked farther at the Aecidium on Calystegia. If you will send more I will try again.

 

Piggotia astroidea is what we used to call Sphaeria ulmea Schw. and I do not see why it is kept distinct from and also placed as a part of Dothidea ulmi in Handbook.

 

[Written on back margin:] The Uromyces on Euphorbia Dr. Curtis considered U. apiculosa and I following him so reported it, but Cooke deems it distinct and he is probably right. I have seen no European U. apiculosa. There is much confusion among the Uromyces anyway.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 5


 

 

Vol. 10 (31) [A 306 & 307 - two sheets]

 

[Albany, Oct.   1873 - no heading]

 

Mr. Linden's Specimens from Para.

x1 Polyporus sanguineus (L.) Fr.

x2 & x3 Polyporus limbatus Fr.? I am not quite satisfied that this determination is correct.

x4 & x9 Lenzites striata Fr.

x5 Polyporus hirsutus v. Brasiliensis Fr.

x6 Trametes hydnoides Fr.

x7 Lentinus rigidulus B. & C.? Their description is very brief and I am not quite sure.

x8 Undetermined. The pores are as in No 5 but the upper surface differs.

x10 Undetermined

x11 Omitted

12 Undetermined

12 (bis) Peziza floccosa Schw.

 

Oct. 1st specimen from Rock City, Allegany County I take to be the small form of Scleroderma vulgare, mentioned in the Handbook, or something near it. The spores and flocci are like those of S. vulgar.

 

Oct. 4th

x1 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x2 Polyporus vaporarius Fr.

x3 Imprfect

x9 Imperfect but the spots appear much like those of Septoria Nabali B. & C.

x5 Uncertain

x6 Macrosporium species undetermined. Can you spare more of this?

7 Lycogala epidendrum L.

x8 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev.

x4 Sporidesmium moriforme Pk. (25th Report)

x10 Agaricus (Colybia) velutipes Curt.

x11 Polyporus lacteus Fr.

 

Oct. 5th

x1 Massaria bufonia Tul.

x2 Imperfect

x3 Agaricus (Mycena) Corticola Schum

 

I would be glad of more Cystopus cubicus

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

[second sheet]

 

Oct. 6

A. Tremella mesenterica Retz

x1 Seems Corticium bicolor Pk. slightly different in color.

x2 Nemaspora crocea Pers. Given in Handbook also as a form of other things.

x3 Seems a form of Lecanora varia - a lichen

x4 Microsphaera penicillata Lev.

x5 Lycoperdon calvescns B. & C. according to Dr. Curtis. Hold it so provisionally until Berkeley describes their species. Have you more specimens to spare?

x6 Guepinia Spathularia Fr.

x7 Imperfect

x* Imperfect.

x9 Stereum acerinum and some steile Hysterium.

x10 Leucobryum vulgare Hampe [A moss]

x11 Probably imperfect bark cells.

 

Microsphaera Vaccinii Pk. is distinct fro M. Friesii v. Vaccinii C. & P. and may be known at once by its very long appendages. Cooke says he thinks it a good species.

 

Received Oct. 10


 

-

Vol. 10 (34) [A 303, 304 - two sheets]

 

Albany, Oct. 14th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I trust you will excuse my delays in reporting on the specimens. I am just now horribly overrun with correspondence and to save postage I prefer to answer the accumulations of several days under cover of a single stamp when I can.

 

A Mr. Mundy has sent a specimens of Botrychium Luneria. which he says he discovered near Syracuse! I never dreamed the thing could be done, but it has been and I am glad, for now we have all the Botrychia of Grays Manual. What lovely Indian summer weather.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. Of. Oct. 13

 

3 The larger black dots are Patellaria indigotica C. & P. By scraping the surface of the wood I find a few green or gonoid cells but the thing is so miserably imperfect. I can not say whether they are intended to be lichen or alga

 

Oct. 14

x1 Stilbospora ovata Pers. These are the only ones I recognize.

 

C. H. P.

 

[second sheet]

 

Oct. 7

x1 No fungus - Mostly the work of insects.

x2 Uncinula Clintoni Pk.

x3 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x4 Macrosporium    sp. uncertain

x5 No fungus

x6 Imperfect   I am quite sure the Chara is C. foetida Braun. I do not know who in this country names these. I was told that Dr. T. F. Allen was making them a special study and once sent him some specimens to name but without success. Your specimens are badly broken by the journey.

 

---------------

 

Oct. 8

x1 Microsphaera Friesii var. Castanea C. & P.

2 Undetermined

x3 A moss - probably young or male plants of Pogonatum brevicaule

x4 Uncertain

x5 Hydnum erinacens or H. coralloides, too little to show which.

x6 Peziza cyathoidea Bull. Black dots not determined.

x7 Not determined.

x8 Not determined.

x9 Diatrype brunnea C. & P. according to Cooke. When Berkeley describes D. obesa B. & C. it will probably include this.

x10 Not determined

x13 Hypocrea contorta (Schw.)

x14 Xylaria Hypoxylon Fr.

15 Not determined

x16 Not determined.

----------------------

x11 Dacrymyces deliquescens Duli.

x12 Hypoxylon (young)

----------------------

x17 Undetermined

x18 Imperfect

x19 Helotium ctirinum Fr.

x20 Nectria    sterile & uncertain

x21 Undermined

x22 Uncertain

x23 & x24 Ag. (Pleurotus) porrigens P.

x25 Imperfect

x26 Cenangium seriatum Fr.

x27 Undetermined

x28 Polytrichum juniperinum. No fungus on it.

x30 Dichaena faginea

x31 Probably a fungus but sterile

x32 Appaently young Stereum purpureum

x29 Not determined.

 

Oct. 12

x1 Undetermined.

x2 Merulius lacrymans

x3 Undetermined (Prob. a lichen)

x4 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev.

x5 Stilbum pelludicum Schrad.

x6 I find nothing good here.

x7 Marasmius subvenosus Pk. 23d Report

x8 Undetermined

x9 Polyporus incarnatus Fr. Can you spare more and do you remember what kind of wood you find it on.

x10 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

11 Imperfect

x12 Phytisma punctatum Fr.

x13 Uncinula circinata C. & P.

x14 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x15 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x16 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x17 Infertile.

 

Oct. 9

x1 No fruit and I get no clue to its character.

2 This Peziza or rather what I suppose to be the same I once sent to Cooke with a figure. He has not yet decided on it.

x3 Pogonatum brevicaule

4 Dicranum rufescens

x5 Tremella sarcoides said to be a state of Bulgaria sarcoides

x6 Orthotrichum crispulum

x7 Neckera pennata

x8 Anomodon apiculatus

x9 Frullania Eboracensis

x10 Frullania Grayana

x11 Hypnum repens

x12 = 10

x13 Jungermannia curvifolia

x15 Not determined

16 Chara foetida Braun

 

Received Oct [overwritten]


 

Vol. 10 (38) [A 299]

 

[[Albany,    1873

 

[[My Dear Sir,   -no heading

 

Oct. 15

I can make nothing good of any of them.

 

Oct. 18

1 Scapania nemorosa (Hepatica)

11 Trichia rubiformis Pers.

12 Trichia clavata Pers.

13 Fissidens bryoides Hedw.

44 Bulgaria sarcoides Fr.

16 Xylaria corniformis Mont.

17 Helminthosporium   n.sp. (I think)

21 Eutypa spinosa Tul.

22 Too far gone for determination.

23 Scorias spongiosa Schw. I am not sure that it is a good fungus. I find it only on wood and leaves defiled by the secretions of wooly plant lice [= wooly aphids?]

24 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

25 Macrosporium et al. sp. incert.

26 Tubercularia nigricans

28 Hendersonia Robiniae West. Now deemed a form of Cucurbitaria elongata Grev.

29 Polyporus sp. incert.

30 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

31 & 33 Tubercularia vulglaris Tode.

26 Hypnum

37 Polyporus sp. incert.

40 Septoria   I do not find it described.

43 Tremella sarcoides  Now deemed a form of Bulgaria sarcoides

45 Peziza sp. incert.

46 Cylindrothecium cladorrhizans

47 Lecythea Ruborum Lev. Now deemed a form of Phragmidium bulbosum

49 Carnpylopsis viridis S. & L.

x52 Bactridium flavum Kze.

 

Of the others some are sterile or imperfect things and some I am unable to locate at present.

 

P.S. I have looked through all my specimens of Rhododendron leaves from Sullivan county for Pestalozzia Mariae-Wilsoni in vain, and I find none on the leaves you sent me the second time, so that all I have is the very little on the first leaf I examined. Is it not possible to find more?

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Oct. 24


 

Vol. 10 (44) [A 292]

 

[[Albany,  1873

 

[[My Dear Sir,  - no heading again - to save space?]

 

Oct. 27th

x1 Diatrype platystoma (Schw.) Can you spare some of this.

x4 Looks to me more like Biatora chlorantha than B. rubella, but I find no fertile asci and must leave it in doubt.

x5 Polytrichum piliferum

x7 Valsa leucostoma Fr.

x9 Climacium Americanum As you suppose

x10 Scorias spongiosa (Schw.)

 

I must say I see no essential difference between this and No. 223 [=?23 or 22?]

 

Oct. 18th. Possibly there may have been some mistake in the sending of the specimens so I return a part of the contents of No. 23 that you may compare again. This production is so peculiar that I have no doubt of the correctness of the determination, still I never found it, as Schweinitz says, in masses two feet in diameter, nor with spores that seem to me exactly to meet the description of Fries, and now that it is in question I think I must try to get Cookes opinion on it. Fries says it always grows near beech trees. I have only found it under or near or on beech and alder trees where there were or had been wooly plant lice, the fungus growing on substances living or dead or even on the ground, defiled by their secretions. These sometimes drop from a considerable height and might not be noticed, also the fungus may remain long after the lice have disappeared from the trees above. Strange as this fact may appear I believe it will always be found by careful observation to hold good, yet neither Schweinitz nor Fries speak of it.

x11 Hypnum tamariscinum

x13 Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R.

x14 Bovista plumbea Pers.

 

Oct. 25

The only ones I make out are

1 Barbula unguiculata Hedw.

x7 Melampsora populina Lev. Black and yellow forms of one thing.

 

Oct. 24

x1 Coryneum clavaesporum Pk.

x2 Diatrype brunnea C. & P. (If not D. obesa B. & C.)

3 Not found

x4 Melampsora salicina Lev. (Winter state)

 

Oct. 23

x1 Hendersonia Robiniae West. Said to be a form of Cucurbitaria elongata

x2 = 2 of Oct. 24

x3 Not determined

x4 Exidia glandulosa Fr.

 

Oct. 21

1 Undetermined

x2 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. with abundant mycelium

x3 Tubercularia.

 

Received Oct. 31


 

 

Vol. 10 (45) [A 291]

 

Albany, Oct. 30th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

All the specimens of Lejeunia hamatifolia and Pannaria crassophylla are mounted in the State Herbarium. I send the others you ask for and a few things at hand.

 

Hypnum Peckii has only been found sterile. I looked for it this summer but found it only sparingly and in such surroundings that I begin to fear it will prove to be an extremely attenuated form of Hypnum uncinatum.

 

Nectria incurvata about whose habitat there was some doubt when reported, does occur on Celastrus scandens. You will remember this is what Dr. C. considered N. appendiculata n. sp. Fortunately its identity was discovered before it was published.

 

I put the Arceuthobium parasite for the present in the genus Sphaeria though as they are now splitting that genus I am not sure it will hold a good Sphaeria.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 1


 

 

Vol. 10 (50) [A 285]

 

Albany, Nov. 6th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Specimens of Nov. 4

 

1 I see no sac under the peridium and can not say positively whether it is Geaster saccatus or not.

2 Seems more like Tremella mesenterica.

x3 Has the spores of Sphaeria capillifera Curr. but I see no pale subiculum. It might be referred to that species with a query.

x4 Uncertain

x5 Polyporus Salviae B. & C. Have you some to spare. New to us.

x6 Uncertain

x7 Uncertain

x8 Polyporus hirsutus Fr.

x9 Not determined.

10, 11, x17 Oidium fulvum Lk.

x12 Sphaeria      ? The perithecia are deeply seated. I do not feel at home among the Sphaeria, there are so many species and so closely related that

they need special study.

x13 Uncertain (Badly stuck up with paper)

x14 Nothing fungusy.

x15 & x16 Near Excipule, but without hairs and with brown spores. I know of no genus for it. Perhaps an imperfect Peziza.

18 Another undetermined Sphaeria.

x19 Clavaria mucida (forked variety)

x20 Hypoxylon atropurpureum as to two of the specimens. The one partly covered with bark is immature and uncertain.

x21 Imperfect

x22 Not determined

x23 Stereum Curtisii Berk.

x24 Imperfect.

x25 Cladosporium herbarum. I find no Depazea on the Aesculus leaves Only spots.

 

I am glad again. I have found among my Sullivan County specimens a paper which I had overlooked and which contains three or four fragments of Rhododendron leaves with Pestalozzia Mariae wilsonii so that I now have enough to get the characters and make a respectable Herbarium specimen.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 6


 

Vol. 10 (56) [A 279 - on a tiny post office postcard bought for one penny

addressed simply "Hon. G. W. Clinton, Buffalo, N.Y."]

 

[[Albany,    1873

[[My Dear Sir,   - no heading

 

Nov. 6

1 & 2 are lichens

3 Is a lichenose crust interspersed by some imperfect Hypoxylon. I am unable to determine with certainty any of the remaining numbers.

 

Nov. 7

 

1 Cladosporium Typhae Schw.

2 No fruit

3 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

4 Daedalea unicolor Fr.

5 Lenzites (spec, incert.)

6 Polyporus hirsutus Fr.

7 Imperfect

8 Trogia crispa Fr. in Handbook = Cantharellus crispus Fr. (formerly)

9 Imperfect

10 & 11 Irpex Tulipiferae Schw.

12 & 13 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr.

x14 Imperfect.

15 Seems a variety of Polyporus scutellatus Schw.

16 Exidia glandulosa Fr.

 

Charles H. Peck

 

11 Nov. 6 is probably a form of Guepinia spathularia.

 

Received Nov. 11


 

Vol. 10 (61) [A 273]

 

Albany, Nov.13th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Nov. 11 I make out

x3 Physcia obscura var. erythrocardia - the red belonging to the lichen.

x15 Frullania Eboracensis Lehm.

8 Merulius tremellosus Schrad.

x14 Cladosporium Herbarum Tode the dark mold.  Penicillium crustaceum Fr. the green mold. Hypomyces aurantia Tul. (Sphaeria aurantia Pers.) the orange colored fungus. There are some slight discrepancies between the specimens and the published descriptions, but still I think they ought to be referred to this place. It is a fine addition to our fungi and I hope you have a goodly quantity of it.

x16 Trogia crispa Fr. (formerly Cantharellus crispus) I inclose good specimens of this and Panus stypticus which will I think illustrate the two species so that you will easily separate them. The crisp lamellae of the former of a pallid or greenish color characterize the species.

 

I think you may as well give a name to the Aecidium on Calystegia leaves, though I am not able to find any definite characters to separate it from Ae. Compositarum. Its habitat might be taken as an indication that they exist even if not seen in the dry specimen. I was in the same fix in regard to Gerard's Aecidium Nesaeae. I could not separate it from Ae. Sambuvis except by its habitat, but I see he has published it as distinct.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 15


 

Vol. 10 (62) [A 272]

 

Albany, Nov. 14th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The inclosed is the only Bahian that I will venture to name. Two of the others seem to be Hypoxyla but I do not find either in fruit.

 

Certainly I shall be pleased to aid you all I can in perfecting your list of fungi.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 17

 

[The reference to “your list of fungi” pertains to the future publication by the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences after Clinton left Buffalo. It was ultimately authored by Peck.]


 

Vol. 10 (66) [A 267 - a tiny post office postcard worth one penny]

 

[same address as above]

 

Albany, Nov. 17th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for Hypomyces aurantius.

No.1  Peziza     species uncertain as it is without fruit.

2 Uncinula spiralis B. & C. = U. Americana Howe. I scarcely know which name should take precedence. Dr. Howe published the first description, but Berkeley had previously figured the appendages and spores.

3 Cladosporium epiphyllum Nees.

 

No 1 is a good illustration of the theory of similarity of asci and paraphyses, or the notion that the latter are an imperfect or undeveloped state of the former. In the specimens the asci are very rare but the paraphyses very abundant, as if the plant had grown under unfavorable conditions and failed to develop its asci.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 18


 

Vol. 10 (74) [A 260 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Dec. 16th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have just procured Dr. Wood's "Contribution to Fresh Water Algae" and from it conclude that the red alga on ground in Conservatory which you sent me long, long ago is "Porphrydium cruentum (Ag.) Naeg." Slow but sure and better late than never are old proverbs applicable to this case.

 

The description of "Phoma Syringae B. & C." which I expected in the Dec. number of Grevillea is not there.

 

The "great many other forms which can scarcely be characterised" I suppose covers this.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Dec. 17


 

Vol. 10 (76) [A 258 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Dec. 20th, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Dec. 17th

-1 Polyactis    apparently undescribed. Name and send more if possible

-2 Cladosporium    species uncertain

-5 Sphaeropsis guercina Pk. 25 Rep. p. 86

-6 Exidia recisa Fr.

 

Of the others I can make nothing.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Dec. 22

 

[Though he lost his budget for postage it is amazing how self reliant these people seem to be - writing tinier and tinier and using a penny postcard.]


 

Vol. 10 (79) [A 255 - full sheet torn from a side-bound notebook]

 

Albany, Dec. 23d, 1873

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Dec. 22d

1 & 2 are imperfect and uncertain.

3, 4 & 5 forms of Cladosporium Herbarum Lk.

6 Peziza Persoonii Moug.

 

I fear I was too hasty in pronouncing the Polyactis a new species. The specimens first put under the microscope seemed to have the flocci nodose and led me into the belief of its novelty but further exmaination fails to sustain this character and I am forced to believe it is only Polyactis fascicularis Cd. in Handbook; Polyactis fasciculata Cd. in Berkleys Outlines & Cooke's Micr. Molds. Which is really Corda's name is a question.

 

I am not aware that Mr. Frost has published any descriptions of Boleti. He has however sent me Manuscript descriptions of most of the species mentioned in your list and specimens of some. I doubt if I can do much with the specimens but will do all I can if you are disposed to send them on.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Dec. 26