|
Correspondence of Charles Peck and G. W. Clinton March 7, 2011 |
|
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 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 C.H.P. Received Jan. 5 Vol. 10 (83) [A 249 - a 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 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] My Dear Sir, Of Jan. 19 1 = Dec 18. "Dead Maple, 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 My Dear Sir, Of Jan. 21 1 Uncinula spiralis B & C.
(figured) = U. 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] 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] 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 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Feb. 4 Vol. 10 (105) [A 228] 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 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Feb. 9 Vol. 10 (106) [A 227] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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 My Dear Sir, No.1 Solenia probably S.
ochracea, but weathered and faded. 2 & 3 Lophistoma triseptatum Pk. Mss. I have it also from 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 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] My Dear Sir, Of Apr. 18th xNo 1 is probably small Agaricus (Pleurotus) applicatus Batsch. It
might possibly develop into Ag. 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] 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] 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 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 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] 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 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 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] My Dear Sir, Of May 7th 1 Coryneum clavaesporum Pk. 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 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] 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 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 7 Eutypa spinosa Ful. 2 6 & 8 imperfect or
uncertain. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received May 29 Vol. 10 (148) [A 156] 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] 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 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] 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] 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 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] 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] 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 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 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] My Dear Sir, I have just returned from a trip in the Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [On side margin] P. S. I direct to Received [no note, postmarked Vol. 10 (172) [A 110, 111, 112, 113] 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 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.) 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. 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 Received [no note] Vol. 10 (175) [A 103/104] 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] 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. 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 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Oct. 3 Vol. 10 (182) [A 92, only written on the back] 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] 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] My Dear Sir, I do not have very good success with the - 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 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] 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] 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] My Dear Sir, Nov. 4 x1 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. x4 & 5 Vermicularia Dematium Fr. x13 Diatrype Duriaei x16 Corticium incarnatum Fr. x18 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. 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] 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. 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] 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] 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 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 |
|
|