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

March 7, 2011


Return to home

The Correspondence of

Charles Peck (1833-1917) and

George William Clinton (1807 1885)

 

1874

 


 

Vol. 10 (82) [A 250 - note there are two postcards numbered "82" by

Clinton. Only this one is from Peck]

 

Albany, Jan. 3d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

No. 1 of Jan. 1st I believe is Sclerotium durum Pers. as you suppose.

 

No. 2 On the smaller branch is Hendersonia Gorni Fekl. except that the basal cell of the spore is not hyaline. Whether it is more than a variety is a question.

 

On the larger branch is another Hendersonia with spores larger and a hyaline cell at each extremity. I do not find it described, and it is probably the good thing you are after. Look for more of both. I shall be glad to see you again in Albany.

 

C.H.P.

 

Received Jan. 5


 

Vol. 10 (83) [A 249 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Jan. 6th, 1874

 

  Jan. 5  No. 1 Seems a Speira, probably an undescribed species.

 

          4 Sphaeronema subtile Fr.

 

          7 Peziza flexella Fr.

 

          9 Oidium simile Berk.

 

          11 Sphaeria subconica C. & P. (in part)

 

          14 Septostroma vulgare Fr.

 

The others are sporeless or imperfect.

 

  Jan. 3      1 Gelatinosporium abietinum Pk. (in part)

 

          2 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

 

          3 Undetermined.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Jan. 7


 

Vol. 10 (90) [A 242 - a U. S. postcard]

 

Albany, Jan.16th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The package of Lonicera branches arrived in safety. Thanks for them. All the four species were represented on them

 

Of Jan 14

1 Seems to be Sphaeropsis quercina Pk. 25th Report

2 No spores

3 Cladosporium Herbarum (mostly)

x4 Imperfect.

x5 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode

x6 Sphaeropsis     n. sp.

x7 Appears to be the same in a more advanced contition.

8 Diplodia vulgaris Lev.

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Jan. 17


 

Vol. 10 (92) [A 240]

 

Albany, Jan. 20th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Jan. 19

1 = Dec 18. "Dead Maple, Delaware St. E. side", Sphaeropsis Clintonii Pk.

x2 Imperfect or immature.

x3 Cladosporium Herbarum

x4 Tubercularia (old)

x5 & x6 Sporeless and uncertain

x7 Torula stilbospora Cd.

x8 I should call this Valsa suffusa Fr., but Cooke to whom I sent specimens long ago thinks differently saying that the ostiola are too much scattered. I doubt if it is more than a mere variety of V. suffusa, but leave it in doubt, for the present.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Jan. 21


 

Vol. 10 (93) [A 239 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Jan. 22d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Jan. 21

1 Uncinula spiralis B & C.  (figured) = U. Americana Howe - described

2 Valsa stilbostoma Fr. (young)

3 Diatrype obesa B. & C. (fide Dr. C's specimens

  D. brunneola C. & P. fide Cooke

4 Imperfect

5 Valsa stilbostoma Fr.

6 Ostiola of some Valsa By stripping off the outer bark the perithecia were left behind.

7 The black erumpent dots show no definite structure or fruit. Beneath is young Diatrype stigma.

8 Valsa stilbostoma Fr.

9 yellow = Nemospora crocea  gray = Diatrype stigma (young)   both forms of one thing

10 Undetermined

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

1 Phoma Mariae Wilsoni

2 Sphaeropsis Mariae Wilsoni

3 Hendersonia Peckii

4 Hendersonia Mariae Wilsoni

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Jan. 23d


 

Vol. 10 (94) [A 238]

 

Albany, Jan.26th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

To avoid paying letter postage I substituted notches in the margin of the wrappers for numbers. One notch was Phoma Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton. Two Sphaeropsis Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton. Three, Hendersonia Peckii Clinton. Four Hendersonia Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton.

 

These correspond with the numbers you now dens - 1 being the Phoma, 2 the Sphaeropsis, 3 H. Peckii and 4. H. Mariae-Wilsoni

 

Of Jan. 24 I can make out only the following.

x4 Diplodia Buxi Fr. - so far as appearance goes. I find no spores.

 

x9 Phoma with fruit like P. M.-Wilsoni. I should say it is the same.

x10 Cladosporium Herbarum

 

Of Jan. 23

2 Stereum complicatum Fr. (Poor)

x12 Phlebia radiata Fr. (Old) the white is mycelioid filaments.

x14 Polyporus hirsutus Fr.

x9 A & 10 are probably a form of Phoma fibricola B. but the spores are scarcely as large as the description requires.

9 Effete Trichia probably T. clavata.

x15 & 16 Exidia     not sure of the species.

 

I make nothing of the others.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Jan. 28


 

 

Vol. 10 (100) [A 233]

 

Albany, Feb. 1st, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I think I can pretty confidently distinguish at sight the Sphaeropsis and the Phoma of the Lonicera but I am not able to separate from each other the Hendersonia without the microscope.

 

Of Jan. 30

 

A B H I are imperfect - mere masses or strings of cells without any apparent regularity. So also a part of F which I have taken out. The others I return with names.

 

It seems an accident prevented our getting Berkeley's descriptions of American Sphaeropses in the last number of Grevillea.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 4


 

 

Vol. 10 (105) [A 228]

 

Albany, Feb. 7th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Feb. 6th I deem

1 Pylaisaea intricata

2 Orthotrichum strangulatum

3 Orthotrichum Ohioense S. & L.

4 Orthotrichum crispulum

 

You will remember the moss from Oregon which I doubtfully referred to Hypnum Neckeroides. I am now satisfied that it is Mnium Menziesii Hook. It is figured in Hookers Botanical Miscellany Vol. 1 under the name Bryum Menziesii but given in Mucsi Exsicc. as above. It is so unlike our Mniums in appearance that at the time it did not occur to me to look among them.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 9


 

Vol. 10 (106) [A 227]

 

Albany, Feb. 11th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

There is no peace to scientists. Probably the sacredness of their occupation excites the hostility of wicked men. Again the Appropriation Bill is without its clause for Compensation of botanist. I do not attribute this to any suggestions of the Comptroller but to the efforts of our old friend Alvord who succeeded in getting on the Committee of Ways and Means, and who evidently has proved more firm in his animosity to scientific work than in his political course.

 

I suppose nothing can be done but to trust to Mr. Wood and his Committee to restore matters if they think best.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Feb. 12


 

Vol. 10 (117) [A 205]

 

Albany, Mar. 2nd, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I regret to hear that you are not well and hope the pleasant spring weather will speedily restore you. I am glad to say that we have some assurance that the appropriation will be restored by the Senate.

 

Alvord's conduct is certainly a mystery to me, but a friend who went to see him obtained form him the promise that if it was restored in the Senate he would not oppose it longer. I hope he will not forget his promise.

 

I find no fruit in the specimens now sent and am unable to say what

they are.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 5


 

Vol. 10 (118) [A 204]

 

Albany, Mar. 4th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 2nd No 1 is Cytispora leucosperma now regarded as a form of Valsa ambiens Fr.

3 Diatrype atropunctata Schw.

2 & 5 are too old and without fruit. The larger spots on one leaf from Cuba and those on leaves from Japan are to all appearance Asterina orbicularis B. & C., but being sterile there is no certainty. The others are not in determinable condition.

 

Gov. Seymour is lending a helping hand in the matter of the Appropriations, blessings on him. The Senate Committee have restored the botanical appropriation.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 5


 

Vol. 10 (125) [A 189]

 

Albany, Mar. 28th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I am glad to hear of your recovery.

 

I fail to make out anything satisfactory concerning the specimens of Mar. 27th. 1 2 & 3 are I think all the same species but in poor condition. 5 seems to be the ordinary scales of the leaf but for some reason these few are discolored. These scales are a pretty object for the microscope.

 

The Appropriation Bill is now back to the Assembly for concurrence. We hope our items restored by the Senate will be kept in.

 

I return a specimen which Cooke has finally determined.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received March 30


 

Vol. 10 (126) [A 188]

 

Albany, Apr. 2nd., 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Mar. 31st

x1 In poor condition but looks like Baeomyces aeruginosus - A lichen.

x2 Dicranum montanum [a moss]

x3 Myxosporium nitidum B. & C.

x4 Diatrype stigma Fr.

x5 Diatrype Cercidicola B. & C. (fide Dr. C's specimens)

x6 Diatrype virescens Schw. - the black are the ostiola.

7 No spores

x8 Pestalozzia Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton

x9 Not determined

x10 Hypoxylon cohaerens Fr.

11 Seems lichen-like

12 Not determined.

13 17 & 18 Sphaeria circumscissa Pers. Dr. Curtis refers this in his Catalogue to the genus Massaria. It seems to me properly to come under Pseudovalsa in the genus Valsa. x16 is the same, the white being apparently the conidia or some such condition of the species.

x14 Not determined

x15 Pyrenula nitida?

xA.1 = 8  A2 Imperfect

xA3 & xA4 Sphaerella oblivia Cooke.

 

This and S. circumscissa are new to me.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 4


 

Vol. 10 (128) [A 185 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Apr. 7th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

No.1 Solenia   probably S. ochracea, but weathered and faded.

2 & 3 Lophistoma triseptatum Pk. Mss. I have it also from Cayuga County.

4 Hysterium pulicare Pers.

5 I find no spores and must leave it undetermined.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 8


 

Vol. 10 (133) [A 174 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Apr. 22d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

"A" of Apr. 21st is a fungus first described by Schweinitz under the name Thelephora candida. It is the Stereum candidum of Fries' Epicrisis and new to our State *. Can you get more of it. I do not regard the minute black dots as a part of it. They seem to have no definite structure and no constancy, and I hardly know what to make of them.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

* That is if you collected it in the State.

 

Received Ap. 23


 

Vol. 10 (134) [A 173]

 

Albany, Apr. 21st, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 18th

xNo 1 is probably small Agaricus (Pleurotus) applicatus Batsch. It might possibly develop into Ag. niger Schw. which is a very closely related species.

x2 Appears to be a form of Kneifia setigera but is not quite like my specimens.

x3 & 6 Sphaeria     species uncertain.

x4 Melanconium minutissimum (Schw.)

5 & 7 Sterile and uncertain

x8 Opegrapha varia.

x9 seems the same as 8 but I find no good fruit.

 

What horrid spring weather. I have not yet had a snuff of fresh air outside the city.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 23


 

Vol. 10 (137) [A 168]

 

Albany, Apr. 27th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The numbers of Fowler's specimens do not run consecutively and of those sent there are several in such poor condition that I do not feel competent to determine them.

x1 Peziza     -

x6 Hirneola Auricula-Hudae Berk.

4 Daedalea unicolor Fr.

x12 Uromyces Limonii Lev.

x14 Erineum roseum

x15 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x16 Dothidea Graminis Fr.

x20 Polyporus abietinus Fr.

x21 Septoria    -.

x22 Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw.

x22 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x23 Colpoma juniperina C. & P. ?

x25 Polyporus elongatus Berk.

x26 & x28 Undermined

27 Ustilago urceolorum Tul.

x30 & x44 Melanconium disseminatum Fr.

x32 I think is a form of Grandinia granulosa Fr.

x49 Valsa pulchella Fr.

x50a & 50b seem Frullania Eboracensis but are without fruit [a Hepatic]

xA I think is a fine new Peziza but it is all broken up and apparently discolored. I would be glad to see this specimen of No 1 in good condition.

 

The others are in poor condition or imperfect.

x"F without number" I think is a Sertularia.

 

Of Apr. 24

1 Seems to me to be a lichen. Is it not young Peltigera. The dots do not seem to be fructifiation.

2 Seligeria recurvata [a moss]

3 Imperfect Helotium aeruginosum

4 Diplodia    -

5 Appears lichen-like

6 Probably a Hysterium but too poor for identification

7 Uncertain

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Ap. 29


 

Vol. 10 (138) [A 167]

 

Albany, Apr. 29th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Apr. 28th

No 1 presents minute black dots slightly attached to the surface of the bark. Under the microscope they appear somewhat membranaceous. In their vicinity are here and there short septate brown threads which indicate the fungoid character, but I find no trace of fructification ad consequently get no clue to its proper location or affinities. I did not imagine it was a lichen.

x2 Septonema spilomeum Berk.

x3 This looks lichenish. I do not know it.

x4 Imperfect

x5 Valsa macrospora Pk. Mss.

x6 Hypoxylon  - too young or imperfect for specific determination

x7 The difference between Calicium and Sphinctrina is very slight. The synonymy shows that botanists have scarcely known whether to keep them separate or not. Cooke remarks under Sphinctrina turbinata that he considers it a lichen and Prof. Tuckerman in Genera Lichenum makes Sphinctrina a section of the genus Calicium. I do not deem it of much importance whether they are kept separate or not. I long long ago sent specimens of this to Cooke but he never ventured to decide upon the species. I think it near S. tigillaris B. & Br. but the spores are larger and some of them simple. Unless it be a variety of that species I am inclined to think it new. I am half disposed to give it a name provisionally that the little fellow may not seem wholly neglected. How would Sphinctrina polyporina do. It is on Polyporus abietinus.

x8 Dichaena strumosa Fr. according to specimens received from Dr. Curtis. I find no description of this species in Fries Systema.

x9 As you have it. I am waiting anxiously to see if Berkeleys description

of Diatrype obesa B. & C. will not include this.

x10 Sphaeronema spina Schw.

x11 & x12 Stereum candidum Fr.

13 Not in determinable condition

x14 Stereum frustulosum Fr.

x15 Uncertain

N I can make nothing of the specimens A. - F.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 2


 

Vol. 10 (139) [A 164 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, May 5th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I believe Fowler's Peziza to be an undescribed species. The spores are small and spherical. But these specimens like the others I believe to be externally discolored by age and exposure to the weather. Before describing I would like to know more definitely concerning the color in the fresh state, whether it grows singly or in tufts, on the ground or on decaying vegetable matter, whether it is evenly expanded or contorted when fresh and if possible the season when it appears. Do you think the Rev. gentleman will care to try to determine these points. As an inducement I leave it without name thinking that perhaps you would like to dedicate it to him and thus interest him in looking after it in the growing state.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 6 & wrote to Mr. Fowler.


 

Vol. 10 (140) [A 164]

 

Albany, May 4th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Specimens of May 1st

xNo. 1 Jungermannia Schraderi [a Hepatic]

 

   Ptilidium ciliare Nees (this has the fruit) [a Hepatic]

x2 Sphagnum cymbifolium

x4 Ditiola radicata Fr.

x5 Polyporus    -

x6 Tympanis alnea Pers.

x7 Dicranum undulatum [a Moss]

   ---

x11 Peziza coccinea Jacq. (Handbook p. 679)

---

x14 Hysterium pulicare Pers.

 

The others except 19 are in poor condition or indeterminable. I am glad if I have been able to add anything to your happines or enjoyment. The pleasure has been mutual.

 

Of May 2

x1 Valsa ambiens Fr.

x2 x3 & x4 Doubtful

x5 & x6 Sphaeria melanostyla Fr.

x7 Sphaerella carpinea Fr.

x8 Discosia alnea Lib. [?sp.]

x9 On herb stem seems to have only spermatia

x9 On leaf No spores.

 

No 7 is new to the state and if you have more to spare I would like a little more.

 

No. 19 is also new to us and I would be glad of more although I am not satisfied at present as to its proper place. The spores are much like those of Melogramma Bulliardi Tul. but the perithecia are not prominent. It  also comes near Sphaeria albopruinosa Schw. so far as I can judge from the description, except the stroma and ostiola. Probably it is something new.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 6


 

Vol. 10 (141) [A 163 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, May 7th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The little dots on 1 & 2 of May 3d afford no fruit and so I suppose must remain incog.

3 This also is provokingly sterile. It may be a form of H. cohaerens.

4 Good. I believe it to be Sarcostroma Berkeleyi Cooke = (Podisoma foliicolum Berk.) although not on leaves of Juniper. It is new to us and I would like a geneous supply if you find it plentiful.

5 Is a Diplodia but it is difficult for me to decide on the species of these things. They seem to be all alike.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 9


 

Vol. 10 (142) [A 162 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, 9th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have very poor success with the sendings of May 6, none being in good condition. I guess, however, that 1 & 2 are Valsa quaternata and 3 Tremella mesenterica.

19 May 1st I conclude is Melogramma Bulliardi Tul. = (Sphaeria Melogramma Fr.) although not agreeing rigidly with the description. Fries Systema gives some characters omitted in the Handbook and the Handbook some omitted in Fries. Putting both together they come so near it that I am disposed to regard it as a slight variety, rather than a distinct species.

 

Thanks for the specimens.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 11


 

Vol. 10 (143) [A 160, for some reason 161 appears on the back]

 

Albany, May 11th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 7th

1 Coryneum clavaesporum Pk.

2 Peziza Tiliae Pk. This is very near P. bicolor but has a paler disk.

x3 Nemaspora crocea Pers.

x4 Sterile

x5 Sphaerella sparsa Awd.

 

Of May 8th

1 = 4 May 3d. I believe this is only a form of Sarcostroma Berkeleyi Cooke = (Podisoma foliicolum Berk.) depending on its different habitat. It is not erumpent and the stroma is scarcely gelatinous but otherwise it is, so far as I can see, all right.

x2 Sterile

x3 Sphaeria melanostyla Fr.

x4 Sphaerella sparsa Awd. mostly. A few larger perithecia are intermixed which belong to Sphaeria melanostyla.

x5 Omitted

x6 Sphaerella sparsa Awd.

x7 Sterile. The leaf seems like ash leaf.

x8 Venturia     a fine new species, I think, which I would like to dedicate to you unless you have a desire to name it yourself. If you have plenty send a little more. There are a few larger long-conical perithecia - some other species - but so few that I for the present let them rest.

x9 Melanconium bicolor Nees.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 13


 

Vol. 10 (144) [A 159 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, May 13th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 9th, No. 1, which is the only one I can determine, is Sphaeria pulveracea Ehrh. = (S. millegrana Schw.).

 

Of May 11

3 Some Diplodia. 5 a Phoma. It seems to be near Phoma epileucum B. but I can not see that the perithecia are "elongated".

6 One piece is fertile and is the supposed variety of Sarcostroma

 Berkeleyi Cooke.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 14


 

Vol. 10 (145) [A 158]

 

Albany, May 14th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I think Zabriskie's Pestalozzia insidens and Blastesis tridens good species and, so far as I cam aware, previously undescribed. The former was first published in Howe's slip a year or more ago. I do not fancy this style of publication and would never recommend it so long as we have proper scientific periodicals willing to publish such things with all reasonable dispatch. I would prefer that all new species of plants found in the State should be first published in our annual report but inasmuch as there is considerable unavoidable delay in this I can say nothing and so keep quiet.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 15


 

Vol. 10 (147) [A 155 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, May 25th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 21st

1 Pestalozzia near P. hysteriiformis B. & C. but there are differences which will, I think, warrant its separation as a new species. Will you name and send more if you can.

x3 Sphaerella sparsa Awd.

4 Orthotrichum strangulatum [a Moss] &  Drummondia clavellata [a Moss]

5 Cytispora     probably C. Micheneri mentioned in Grevillea 19 p. 99 but which Berkeley does not seem to regard as worth describing.

7 Eutypa spinosa Ful.

 2 6 & 8 imperfect or uncertain.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 29


 

Vol. 10 (148) [A 156]

 

Albany, May 27th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

The moss is clearly a Polytrichum, probably P. commune which grows in almost all parts of the world.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received May 29


 

Vol. 10 (149) [A 153, again no. 154 is assigned to the back page]

 

Albany, June 1st, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the specimens of Pestalozzia and the compliment.

 

The specimens of May 29th I consider thus:

1 Hypnum recurvans

3 Polytrichum formosum

4 & 5 Hypnum denticulatum

x6 Bartramia pomiformis

x7 Bryum nutans

x8 Hypnum Muhlenbeckii

x9 Mnium sucpidatum

x10 Fegetalla conica as you have it.

x11 Mastigobryum trilobatum

x12 Polytrichum formosum

x17 Probably Diatrype obesa B. & C.

x19 Aecidium Violae Schum.

x21 Sphaeria pilifera Fr. but sterile

x23 Valsa Colliculus Wormsk.

x24 Nectria balsamea C. & P.

x25 Cenangium Pinastri Fr.

x26 Cheiromyces Beaumontii B. & C. according to specimens received from Dr. Curtis.

14 Is probably young Woodsia obtusa or perhaps the var. of Cystpteris fragils.

 

I make nothing satisfactory out of the other numbers.

 

From tan bark Marasmius plancus Fr.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 3


 

Vol. 10 (152) [A 150 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, June 5th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of May 30th

1 & 2 Not determined   3 Trichobasis apparently a new species  4 Aecidium   

It does not agree with the description of Ae. saniculae and may be new

   5 Aecidium podophylli Schw. & Puccinia aculeata Schw.

 

A June 1 A lichen in fruit but I do not know it.

 

June 2

1 Stereum complicatum Fr.

2 Melanconium bicolor Nees.

6 Diatrype virescens Schw.

 

I get no satisfactory solution of the others.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 6


 

Vol. 10 (153) [A 148, 149 on the other side]

 

Albany, June 8th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of June 5th

x1 Aecidium Urticae DC.

x2 A nice Sphaeria but I fail to find any description that meets it. Is it not possible to find out what plant it is on.

3 Preissia commutata probably [a Hepatic]

x10 Vermicularia coptina Pk. Mss.

x8 Bryum pyriforme (the small one,) The other - a single plant - is probably B. caespiticium.

 

The remaining numbers are poor things.

 

Of June 6

1 No fruit but probably Valsa leucostoma Fr.

2 No fruit but probably Diatrype Cercidicola B. & C.

4 Gelatinosporium betulinum Pk.

x7 Massaria vomitoria B. & C.

x12 Vermicularia Dematium Fr.

x14 Vermicularia coptina Pk. Mss.

x18 Sphaeronema spina (Schw.)

x19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Polytrichum juniperinum.

 

The others I must leave in statu quo.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 10

 

[“in statu quo’ or ‘in the same state in which’ refers to the condition or state of something at a particular time, perhaps here ‘in the same state in which I received them.’]


 

Vol. 10 (154) [A 148]

 

Albany, June 11th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of June 8th, No. 1 contains what I take to be Stilbospora Staphyleae Schw. and Sphaeria staphylina Pk. I return samples of each. No. 2 is "no good"

 

Of June 9th

1 Cladosporium        species unknown

2 Sterile

3 I do not think it a lichen. It seems Sphaeria-like but is imperfect and uncertain.

4 As near Ascochyta as anything I can find. Probably undescribed.

6 Aecidium Compositarum var. d.

 

The Sandwich Is. specimens are received.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 12


 

Vol. 10 (156) [A 144 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, June 17th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have had but poor success with your lost [last?] specimens

 

June 12

x3 Valsa leucostoma Fr.

x16 Stereum striatum Fr.

x17 Stereum complicatum Fr.

-----

x7 Seems a lichen

x8 Hypoxylon too old

x9 Hypoxylon too young

 

June 15

2 Torula stilbospora Cd.

3, x4 & 5 Lophiostoma triseptata Pk. Mss.

 

June 14

x1 Septoria Nabali B. & C.

x3 Uredo Chaerophylli Schw.

x4 Probably Xylaria Hypoxylon but too young.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 18


 

Vol. 10 (157) [A 142, 143 on the back]

 

Albany, June 22d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I do not recognise the clover you send nor do I find anything like it in the Beck Herbarium. Suppose you send a specimen to Prof. Gray. If naturalized we ought to find it out.

 

Of June 17

3 is a Septoria probably new - at least it does not agreee with the description of Phyllosticta Violae Desm.

4 Probably Barbula mucronifolia, certainly not Polytrichum piliferum.

 

Of June 20

3 seems Marasmius oreades Fr.

9 Aecidium hydnoideum B. & C.

7 Hysterium pinastri Fr. var.

x2 Agaricus (Crepidotus) fulvotomentosus Pk.

8 appears to be a large form of Polyporus elegans Fr. but I am not sure.

 

The other numbers I am unable to determine

"No. 5 & etc" not mentioned in my last were in the same condition. I mentioned those only which I could make out.

 

I am in great haste this morning preparing to leave on a collecting trip. If my reports on your specimens should be delayed, please attribute it to absence from town, as I expect to be away from time to time now for the rest of the season.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received June 26


 

Vol. 10 (162) [A 129, 130]

 

Albany, July [no day], 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of June 22

x1 is Cytispora chrysosperma Fr.

x2 a Sphaeria - species not determined, perhaps new

x3 Peziza Dehnii Rabh.

 

June 26

x1 Preissia commutata Nees.

x2 Peziza - a beautiful species but I find no description that meets it. Have you more and any record of its habitat color when fresh etc. It ought to be new.

x4 Not good but probably Cenangium Pinastri Fr.

x5 Trichia clavata Fr.

x7 Peziza vinosa A. & S.

x8 Peziza vinosa A. & S. & a variety of Physarum nutans.

10 Trichia       ?

x11 Sphaeria Verbascicola Schw. (but sterile)

12 Uredo Potentillarum DC.

x13 & x14 Melanconium oblongum Berk.

x17 Peziza calycina Schum.

x19 Discosia alnea Sib.

x19 Hysterium Pinastri Fr.

x20 Puccinia     ?

 

The other numbers are sterile or otherwise indeterminable.

 

June 29

1 Uromyces Lilii Clinton. In ed.

x5 Puccinia Waldsteiniae Curt.

x6 Septoria       ?

x8 Hysterium virgultorum in Handbook (Hysterium Rubi Pers.) in Systema Mycol.

x13 Xylaria Hypoxylon Fr. (young)

x16 Polythrincium Trifolii Kze.

x18 Sepedonium chrysospermum Lk.

x19 Uredo cirsii Lash. I suppose, I have no description of it.

 

The other numbers are not good.

 

2 June 22nd     l

2 & 20 June 26  l -- Should be looked after further as they may be new.

 

6 June 29       l

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received July 3


 

Vol. 10 (167) [A 120 a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Aug. 6th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have been absent for some time and find on my return three or four packets of specimens from you. But my eye has been badly inflamed again and though better now it still feels weak so that I must defer for a time the examination of specimens. A little care now may save me much trouble.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Aug. 7


 

Vol. 10 (171) [A 114]

 

Albany, Sept. 2nd, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have just returned from a trip in the Lake Pleasant region - Hamilton County, and find "lots" of specimens from various sources awaiting attention. My eye is well though not quite as strong as I could wish. I shall work it with the microscope gradually at first. My success this trip was very satisfactory.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

[On side margin] P. S. I direct to Buffalo as you are probably there by this time.

 

Received [no note, postmarked Albany Sept. 3]


 

Vol. 10 (172) [A 110, 111, 112, 113]

 

Albany, Sept. 11th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I have looked somewhat hastily over your specimens which had accumulated during my absence. The following is the result.

 

July 4th

x9 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev.

 

July 10th

x1 Riccia fluitans L.

 

July 16th

x3 Puccinia Veratri Clinton

x4 Puccinia Calthae? This does not agree well with the description and I am uncertain as to the species.

x12 Triphragmium clavellosum Berk.

x14 Aecidium aroidatum Schw.

 

Trichobasis Ari-Virginici (Schw.)

x15 Septoria Lobeliae Pk. A variety

x19 Agaricus (Mycena) epipterygius Scop.

 

Aug. 3rd

x1 Septoria Verbascicola B. & C. (fide Dr. C's specimens)

x2 Appears to be an Oidium; probably the conidioid state of the next.

x3 Podosphaera Kunzei Lev.

x5 Puccinia Violarum Lk.

x10 Puccinia Circaeae Pers.

x11 Schizophyllum commune Fr.

x18 & x19 Cladosporium epiphyllum Nees.

x21 Septoria Polygonorum Desm. A variety.

x25 Tympanis alnea Pers.

x28 Aecidium Nesaeae Gerard.

x29 Aecidium Hypericatum Schw.

x34 Septoria Verbenae Desm. & Rob.

x35 Puccinia solida Schw.

x39 Trichobasis Violarum Lev.

x40 Puccinia Poygonorum Lk.

x41 Dothidea, A pretty and probably new species.

x17, x20 & x30 Insect work.

x37 is marked "Aug 23": it is

 

Aecidium Euphorbiae-hypericifoliae Schw. &

 

Uromyces Euphorbiae C. & P.

 

   Aug. 5th

2 Naematelia nucleata Fr.

x7 Puccinia Circaeae Pers.

x8 Stilbum pellucidum Schrad.

x13 Stereum fasciatum Fr.

x14 Spathularia flavida Pers.

 

Aug. 8

x1, x2 Trichobasis Labiatarum Lev.

x3 Puccinia Polygonorum Lk.

x4 Uredo Solidaginis Schw.

x5 Septoria Oenotherae B. & C.

x6 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x7 Trichobasis Iridicola Pk.

x9 Uromyces triquetra Cooke

x10 Aecidium Hypericatum Schw.

 

Aug. 10

x4 Puccinia Sorghi Schw. I think it only a form of P. graminis.

x18 Puccinia    n. sp. Please name.

 

Aug. 17th ... In box.

x1, x2 & x23 Rhytisma solidaginis Schw. which is only insect work - Not a fungus

x7 Hypoxylon cohaerens Fr.

x11 Valsa stellulata Fr.

x16 Septoria Lobeliae Pk. variety

x17 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x19 Sphaeria coprophila Fr.

x21 Agaricus (Omphalia) Campanella Batsch.

x28 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull.

x24 Aecidium tenue Schw.

x25 Arcyria punicea Pers.

x31 Nodularia acericola Pk.

x34 Septoria Rubi B. & C. variety

x36 Puccinia Myrrhis Schw.

x37 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x38 Puccinia Circaeae Pers.

x39 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev.

x39 (bis) Cantharellus floccosus Schw.

x40 Cantharellus floccosus Schw.

40 (bis) Polyporus       ?

x42 Paxillus porosus Berk. apparently but too poor condition to be satisfactory.

x41 (bis) Hypomyces Lactifluorum (Schw.)

x42 Scleroderma vulgare

x43 Polyporus lacteus.

44 Decomposed and blackened past recognition

14 & x35 Insect work.

 

The omitted numbers are either not good fungi or at present indeterminable.

 

P.S. Cooke writes me that Berkeley pronounces the Sphinctrina on Polyporus (which I called S. polyporina) to be S. tigilaris B. & Br., notwithstanding the larger spores. Also not being quite satisfied with my determination of Sphaeria circumscissa Pers. (13 & 17 March 31) I sent specimens to Cooke who makes a new species of it - Melanconis bicornis C. & P. Please note the corrections.

 

Received [no note]


 

Vol. 10 (175) [A 103/104]

 

Albany, Sept. 22nd, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Fowler's No. 65 is probably Uncinula adunca but it is too young to determine with certainty - the appendages are not yet fully developed.

68 Erineum alnigerum Kze.

181 Leptodon  trichomitrium Mohr.  The other returned.

 

Hypnum compactum C. Mull. belongs to subgenus Amblystgium.

 

Hypnum vernicosum Lindb. is related to H. aduncum and belongs to dubgenus Harpidium.

 

Sept. 20

No. 1 (7 July 4) Specimens before sent were poor. This is a little better and yields a few spores which indicate the genus Prosthemium. It is not P. stellare but I hestitate to describe it from the scanty fruit the specimens

afford. Can you get more.

2 "Menyanthes" This is a great improvement on the former specimens and is clearly Protomyces Menyanthis DeBary. If you have an abundance, send more.

3 (8 Aug. 8) This is clearly insect work and no fungus. The little fellow mines the leaf and leaves a mass of excrement on the outside.

 

I have not yet had time to examine the specimens form Greenport and those of Sept. 18th. I find that it takes more time to examine carefully than it does to collect.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Sept. 24


 

Vol. 10 (179) [A 96/97]

 

Albany, Sept. 30th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Sept. 25

1 No fungus   2 No spores

3 Septoria mirabilis Pk. (25 Rep. p. 87.)

4 & 5 Nothing good.

6 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

7 & 8 Sphaerotheca Castagnei Lev.

 

Sept. 19 Greenport, etc.

1 Uredo Agrimoniae Schw.

2 Stereum fasciatum Fr.

x4 Puccinia Xanthii Schw.

x6 Septoria Polygonorum Desm.

x7 Uromyces Limonii Lev.

x8 Aecidium Statices Desm.

x10 Septoria Oenotherae B. & C. fide Dr. Curtis specimens. Berkeley declines describing this as his specimens are sterile.

x9, x12, & 13 Uredo Solidaginis Schw.

16, 23, & x32 Dothidea graminis Fr.

x17 Cystopus candidus Lev.

x19 Puccinia Smilacis Schw. New to the State. Have you more to spare.

x22 Septoria Rubi B. & C.

x28 Irpex cinnamomea Fr.

x34 Hysterium pulicare Pers.

x33 Uromyces graminum Cooke var. New to us but the specimens are very meagre. Would like more.

 

Sept. 18

I can not make much of these

x8 & x9 Cystopus cubicus Str.

2, x10 & x11 Are Septoria  - 11 probably is Septoria Coptidia B. & C. but I do not find the others named.

 

The box with Agaricus from Goat Island is at hand. I deem it Agaricus (Volvaria) bombycinus Schaeff.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 3


 

Vol. 10 (182) [A 92, only written on the back]

 

Albany, Oct. 5th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Sept. 29th

x1 Septoria scrophulariae Pk. Mss.

x2 Septoria probably undescribed and yours to name.

3, 4, x6, x7 & x9 Imperfect or indeterminable

5 These specimens are in good condition. It is a Sphaeria - probably the Sphaeria perisporioides B. & C. I have no description - indeed I suppose none has ever been published - and Ravenels specimens are sterile. They have the same habit as yours but are on Rhyncosia leaves, so I can only surmise their identity by their external appearance.

x8 Seems to be both Cladosporium and Macrosporium intermingled.

x10 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

[On left margin] P. S. Thanks for Puccinia Smilacis Schw. & Uromyces Graminum Cooke Can not decide concerning the supposed Prosthenium. The specimens all seem imperfect.

 

Received Oct.13


 

Vol. 10 (183) [A 91 on back page with nothing written on it and no

numbers for the other three "pages" of a four page letter]

 

Albany, Oct. 10th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Oct. 1

xNo. 4 is Vermicularia coptina Pk. Mss.

x5 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.

x1 Uncertain

x2, 3, 6 etc. to 15 are not determinable. More spots upon leaves occur frequently without any perithecia or spores as in Fragaria and Rumex. These fellows are often spotted but I never could find any fungus on the spots. I suppose it an abortive attempt to fungize just as some of our mosses occur far and near but never in a fertile state.

 

I might say of the above the 1 may be a degerate state of Oidium fructigenum and 6 of Sphaeria solidaginum Schw. but they are uncertain

 

Oct. 2nd

x1 No spores

x2 Entomology

x3 Sphaeria eccentrica C. & P.

x4 Trichobasis Labiatarum Lev.

x5, x6 & x7 Not determinable

x8 Cladosporium epiphyllum Nees.

x9 Only leaf spots

 

Oct. 3

x1 Agaricus (Mycena) galericulatus Scop.

x3 Stereum spadiceum Fr.

x4 Nemaspora crocea Pers.

x7 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr.

x9 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

2, x5, x6, x8 Uncertain.

 

Oct. 5

x1 Seems not a fungus.

x2 Cladosporium herbarum & Macrosporium cheiranthi.

x3, x4 & x5 Spots only

x6 Microsphaera but imperfect or immature - no sporangia, hence uncertain.

x7 Sterile

x8 Rhytisma salicinum Fr.

x9 Imperfect or nothing

x10 Septoria Rhoidis B. & C.

x11 Spots only

x12 Septoria Rubi B. & C.

x13 No fungus

x14 No spores

x15 No. spores

x16 & x17 Vermicularia. I can not separate them from V. Liliacearum

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 13


 

Vol. 10 (185) [A 87/88]

 

Albany, Oct. 19th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I do not have very good success with the Sardinia specimens

 - Oct. 12

8 is Erineum alnigerum and Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x9 Sphaeria Coryli Batsch.

x15 Agaricus (Collybia) myriadophyllus Pk.

x17 & 18 Vermicularia Dematium Fr.

x21 Stilbospora ovata Pers.

x22 Some scale insect I think - at any rate it is insect and not fungus.

 

The other numbers are either no fungi or not in determinable condition except 16 which I think is a Nectria but I can not yet decide upon the species. I return the two sent in box or packet. voz. Agaricus (Lepiota) Friesii Lasch. & Clavaria pistillaris L.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 20


 

Vol. 10 (187) [A 82 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Oct. 23d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Oct. 13

1 Phacidium crustaceum B. & C. (fide Dr. Curtis).

3 & 4 Cytispora hyalosperma Fr.

x5 & x6 Rhytisma Vaccinii Schw.

x7 Microsphaera Hedwigii Lev.

x8, x15, x16 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

[17 or x7], x27 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x9 Microsphaera extensa C. & P.

x12, x13 Uncinula circinata C. & P.

x14, x24 Uncinula adunca lEV.

X20 Septoria ochroleuca B & C.

x29 Piggotia astroidea B & Br.

x31 No spores but externally looks like Hysterium Fraxini. The rest are nothing or indeterminable.

 

Oct. 18

x5 Microsphaera Dubyi Lev.

x7, x8 Puccinia Galiorum Lk.

x12 Sphaeria Taxicola Pk. but sterile

 

Oct. 20

x3 & x8 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

3 (in part), 4, & 10 Tubercularia.

 

Others bad.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Oct. 24


 

Vol. 10 (192) [A 72, 71]

 

Albany, Oct. 31st, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Oct. 22nd the only good thing is No. 2 a Septoria probably new. I do not find it described. It is the same as 3 Oct. 24.

 

Of Oct. 23

x1 Cystispora leucosperma Fr. a form of

x2 Valsa ambiens Fr.

x7, x8, & x9 Vermicularia Dematium Fr. This is all I can make of these

 

Of Oct. 24

x1 Ectostroma Liriodentri Schw. but very doubtful if a good fungus.

2 Stereum purpureum Fr.

 

x3 = 2 Oct. 22

x7 Corticium salicinum Fr.

x9 Nectria subiculata Pk. Ms.

 

Can you spare a little more of this

x12 Valsa rufescens Schw. I do not believe this is specifically distinct from Valsa aculeans Schw.

 

Oct. 25

2 & x8 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x4 Asteroma Rosae DC. New to us. Can you spare more.

x6 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x3 This comes near Microsphaera Hedwigii, but differs some. I am at a loss to know whether to lump it in or cut close and separate it. Have you more to spare. Perhaps further specimens will aid in deciding.

 

I can not now put my hand on the specimens of Ag. Myriadophyllus, but will try to bear it in mind.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 2


 

Vol. 10 (193) [A 68, 69, 70, only three of four pages, and one with no writing on it]

 

Albany, Nov. [no date], 1874

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Oct. 29

x6 Hysterium clavaesporum C. & P. so far as I can judge. The fruit is not mature.

x7 & x9 Uromyces pyriformis Cooke.

x10 Puccinia Polygonorum Lk. Pollygonum amphibium has truncate ochreae. The form with ochreae having spreading foliaceous tips I have referred to Pollygonum Hartwrightii Gr. though I have never found it in flower or fruit.

x18 Trichia clavata Pers.

x31 Melampsora tremulae Tul.

x34 Agaricus (Collybia) velutipes Curt.

 

x4 & x5 are pretty but without fruit. I suspect a Perisporium. x17 is also interesting but no mature fruit. Others not good.

 

Of Nov. 2d I can make nothing.

8 & 10 of Oct. 24 = 9 Oct. 24, i.e. Nectria subiculata Pk. Mss. They were before overlooked.

 

Thanks for the specimens. I intended you to name the Septoria on Sambucus. I have marked it down Septoria sambucina n.sp. and the Microsphaera on Oak leaves I have concluded to separate under the name Microsphaera abbreviata, in consequence of the very short appendages.

 

Of Nov. 3

I have poor success

5 Affords no spores, hence is doubtful though looking much like Septoria Polygon [orum Desm.]

6 is also without spores but probably young Peziza coccinea.

 

I have, of the Uncinulae you mention, spare duplicates only of U. Clintonii, therefore am not able to send the others you mention, hence you had better send all if you can.

 

I am pleased with the turn political events have taken in the Legislature, especially as Alvord comes back a Republican.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 7


 

Vol. 10 (194) [A 66/67]

 

Albany, Nov. 7, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Nov. 4

x1 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x4 & 5 Vermicularia Dematium Fr.

x13 Diatrype Duriaei Mont.

x16 Corticium incarnatum Fr.

x18 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x21 Uncinula Clintoni Pk.

x22 Septoria Scrophulariae Pk. Ms.

x23 Microsphaera Peckii Gerard though I have some doubts if it is more than a variety of M. Hedwigii.

x27 Uncinula circinata C. & P.

x28 Sphaeria fimbriata probably, but it is not in good condition.

x25 Sphaeria but sterile and indeterminable

x14 & 15 More puzzling than ever.

x9 Puccinia    I deem it an undescribed species. What will you call it?

 

The others are good for nix.

 

Nov. 3d.

x15 Apparently Sphaeria Taxicola Pk. but sterile. I found fruit in May.

x18 Uredo Solidiginis Schw.

x20 Rhytisma punctatum Fr.

x22 The "Xylaria looking thing" I take to be the stems of abortive Marrasmius rotula.

x23 & 23 Seems to be the same thing as 22.

x25 Hysterium tumidum Duby probably but in poor condition.

x27 Puccinia Nolitangeris Cd.

32 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr.

 

The "dark netting" of 23 and 26 has puzzled me much. I find it very abundant on oak leaves and have often tried to discover the cause but without avail.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 9


 

Vol. 10 (195) [A 62, 63, 64, 65]

 

Albany, Nov. 13th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of Nov. 11 I can make nothing satisfactorily

 

Of Nov. 10th

x2 Patellaria indigotica C. & P. in part. The flat fungus on decorticated wood. The other is in poor condition and is probably some Sphaeria.

x5, x17 & x20 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x7 Tubercularia nigricans Lk.

x8 Nectria cinnabarina Fr.

x6 Helminthosporium Tiara B. & R.

x9 Oidium concentricum B. & Br. in part. I find the fungus only on a few spots. I doubt if it is the cause of most of them.

x11 Cytispora fugaz Fr. is part. Helotium salicellum Fr. is the little yellowish Peziza-like fungus on the smaller twig. This is new to us and I would like more if you have it to spare.

x13 Appears to be Erysiphe lamprocarpa with conceptacles wanting.

x16 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode.

x18 Dothidea ornans Schw.

x19 Hypoxylon serpens Fr.

x21 Melampsora salicina Lev.

x24 Sphaeria Daturae Schw. For a wonder this is in good fruit. It is new to us and as usual I would like more.

x28 Erineum Vitis DC.

x29 Phragmidium mucronatum Lk. var. Ruborum C. & P.

 

 17 Oct. 29 I find fruit in these specimens which unexpectedly to me makes it Sphaeria hirsuta Fr. The supposed subiculum is another thing which I call Monotospora biseptata Pk. Whether the two have any other relation than juxtaposition may be a question, but certainly I never before saw S. hirsuta thus accompanied by the Monotospora. I return some.

 

Also 14 Nov. 3 which I forgot to inclose before. Both alike.

 

I find I was too hasty in pronouncing new 8 9 & 10 Oct 24 (Necria subiculata Pk.) It is in Ravenels "Fung Exsic." as Sphaeria callista B. & C.

 

Though I believe it a better Nectria than Sphaeria (the spores are minute and indefinite as in some Nectriae) it is perhaps best to leave it in the genus Sphaeria for the present. Please make the correction. I have been so driven lately that if I have made no worse mistakes than this I shall deem myself fortunate. I am unable to tell what wood or bark 32 Nov. 3 is on, so I return the specimen. I have it in plenty as the species is common.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. Three is a Puccinia Peckiana, wherefore your P. Peckii better be changed to P. Clintonii Pk.

 

P. Nolitangeris is a little independent in dodging off to Dalibarda, but it agrees better with the description there than when on Impatiens.

 

Very truly

 

C. H. P.

 

Received Nov. 14


 

Vol. 10 (196) [A 60/61]

 

Albany, Nov. 17th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Of the sendings of Nov. 12 13 & 14 I make out only the following.

1 Nov. 12 Streptothrix atra B. & C.

x4 Nov. 14 Cytispora fugax Fr.

2 Nov. 14 the Peziza from Greenhouse comes nearest the smaller spored form of Peziza hirta but does not quite agree with the description. It was probably meant for that but modified perhaps by its place of growth.

 

Of Nov. 15th

4 & 5 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x8 Tubercularia; if on Celastrus it is doubtless T. Celastri Schw. and the primary form of Nectria Celastri (Schw.)

9 Puccinia Violarum Lk.

x10 Rhytisma acerinum Fr.

x11 Hypoxylon fuscum

x14 Leptostroma filicinum Fr. said to be a form of Dothidea

x26 Peziza Dehnii Rabh.

 

x17 & x23 are fertile and good, but I hardly feel able to spare the time just now to study them up. I want to get my material together for my report. I have had so much to do for correspondents lately that I am behind with my work on my report.

 

16 is all right - Helotium salicellum Fr.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Received Nov. 20


 

Vol. 10 (198) [A 55/56]

 

Albany, Nov. 23d, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

I return 10 Nov. 15 as desired, but as there is so little of it I add also a specimen from Catskill Mts.

 

I hear from Cooke at quite distant intervals and a goodly number of my sendings to him yet remain unreported. I send some of his later determinations though I thought I had mentioned them before.

17 & 18 March 31 he makes a new species, Melanconis bicornis C. & P. This I had thought was Sphaeria circumscissa Pers. but having some doubt I sent it to him with the above result.  It is on bark of Platanus.

7 Nov. 28; 3 Nov. 28; A. Dec. 3; 10. Apr. 18 [all] Sphinctrina tigilaris B. & Br.

 

In yoru specimens the spores are twice as large as given in Handbook and sometimes simple. On these discripancies I called it Sphinctrina polyporina, but Cooke submitted it to Berkeley, who decided as above and I accept his decision.

 3, 4 & 10 March 10' 17, 20 & 21 Apr. 18 [all] Cooke has not reported on these but I am well persuaded that they are all Hypocrea gelatinosa Fr.

8 March 10; 18 Apr. 18 [both] he calls Sphaeria acervalis v. Juniperi West

.

There are some other things of yours not yet reported on by him.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

P. S. Will examine your specimens as soon as I get my Report in shape.

 

Very truly

 

   C.H.P.

 

[On back left margin:] Can you send me a bit more of Puccinia Clintonii - on Pedicularis.

 

Received Nov. 24


 

Vol. 10 (199) [A 54 - a U.S. postcard]

 

Albany, Nov. 28th, 1874

 

My Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for the specimens of Puccinia Clintonii.

 

Tell the florist that 6 & 7 Nov. 26 are the same thing - a fungus - Oidium leucoconium Desm. - the white-dust Oidium Sphaerotheca pannosa is said to be another form of the same thing. Fries remarks "Iam hoc, quam Erysiphe pannosa sub nomine Le Blanc du Rosier veniunt".

 

I do not know a remedy but would suggest, sprinkling powdered sulphur over the affected bushes or what would perhaps be better syringing with some soluble compound of sulphur, as Copperas, as an experiment, taking care not to use the solution so strong as to injure the plants.

 

Very truly yours

 

Charles H. Peck

 

Judge G. W. Clinton 

Received Nov. 30