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)





Vol. 10 (210) [A 25/26]


Albany, Jan. 30th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Some specimens laid aside under the pressure of preparing my Report have at last been taken up and examined.


Nov. 27th

x2 Leptostroma vulgare Fr.

x3 Sclerotium durum Pers.

x5 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x12 Helotium citrinum Fr.

x17 Plicatura Alni Pk. This may have to go in the genus Trogia as now extended.

x18 Dothidea Linderae Ger.

x19 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr.

x20 Diatrype virescens Schw.

x26 Leptostroma litigiosum Desm.

x36 & x37 look like Sphaeria tubaeformis Tode but the specimens are without fruit.


Dec. 5th

x7, x9 & x11 Pestalozzia Guepini Desm.

10 Has a little of the same fungus.

8 is a Macrosporium species uncertain


Dec. 12

1 a moss Polytrichum juniperinum

The others I am unable to determine. Some are not in determinable condition.


Of the mosses returned, the two foreign ones are unknown to me.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[no note]


Vol. 10 (216) [A 14, 15, 16, 17]


Albany, Feb. 15th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Your numbers for Nov. 16 18  20 & 22 in some way got in a separate place from the others and were thus overlooked. I will now report on them thus:


Nov. 16

x3 & x4 Cladosporium herbarum Lk. (at least in part)

x5 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x6 Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

x8 This is Uredo Agrimoniae Schw. who considered it distinct from U. Potentillarum. Dr. Curtis regarded them as the same. I am unable myself to separate them, but will compare again when I get fresh specimens.

x9, x12 & x13 Microsphaera abbreviata Pk.

x10 & x11 Helminthosporium - I think a fine new species. I wish you would call it "uncinatum" or name characteristic of the peculiar flocci which are hooked or curved something like this [drawing].


Nov. 18

x1 & x3 Sphaeria Fraxicola Schw. according to Dr. Curtis's specimens but there is no fruit.

x2 Apparently Sphaerella sparsa Awd. but no fruit

x10 Stereum frustulosum Fr.

x11 Eutypa spinosa Tul.

x13 Oidium fulvum Lk.

x16 Aegerita candida Pers. This is new to me and an interesting addition to our species. Can you send more.

x17 Corticium incarnatum?

x22 Hysterium clavaesporum C. & P. (Cooke writes the specific name "clavisporum", but the other way seems to me the best as the allusion is evidently to the clavate shape of the spore and the derivation from clava rather than clavis.)

19 & 20 seem to be a Perisporium but both are without fruit.


Nov. 20

x4 Appears to be Tremella foliacea

x7 & x8 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.

x13 Torula stilbospora Cd.

x14 Stereum frustulosum Fr.

x15 Hysterium commune Fr.

x19 Hypoxylon atropurpureum Fr.

x20 Vlsa aculeans Schw. This seems to me the same as his Valsa rufescens.

x25 Dothidea graminis Fr.

x28 Microsphaera densissima (Schw.)

x31 Helotium citrinum Fr.

x37 Cladospodium Typhae Schw.

x48 Diatrype Duriaei Mont.

x54 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.


Many in this packet and some in the others are not in determinable condition.

x4 Probably old Tubercularia vulgaris

x5 Cryptosporium Scirpi Pk. but sterile


   Feb. 6

x1 Some scale insect

x2 Torula - but species uncertain

x3 Imperfect


In overhauling some duplicates I have found Ag. myriadophyllus Pk. (15 Oct. 12) which you once wished returned, and inclose it.


A "No. 4, July 21 Richfield Springs", which was long ago sent to Cooke, he calls Sphaeriaz exigua C. & P.


I would not have you refrain from sending specimens to Cooke on my account. I hope I may never be selfish in any matter pertaining to science. Doubtless in some repects Cooke is better qualified to decide upon species than I am and in some doubtful cases I myself refer to him for aid.


[On left margin] I have declined his proposal to me which I showed you when here, partly through fear that I should not have time to do all he seemed to expect of me and partly because I considered anything less than a joint authorship too small an inducement.


Very truly yours,


Chas. H. Peck.


Received Feb. 17


[clava,-ae (s.f.I) is a club or cudgel, whereas clavis,-is (s.f.III) is a key.]



Vol. 10 (217) [A 13 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Feb. 19th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Thanks for Aegrita. "A Feb. 18" is Microsphaera abbreviata Pk. Your "grabbings" as you call them are always welcome. Only give me time to examine them and I shall not complain. Without them many good things would now be unknown.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received Feb. 22


Vol. 10 (218) [A 12 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Feb. 24th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The moss is Mnium Menziesii Hook. Thanks for the specimens, but the fruit is rather young yet.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received Feb. 26


Vol. 11 (2) [J 282 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Mar. 9th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The fungus you send is new to me and I am unable to give its name. Neither do I know of any such plant as "Scoliocarpum populum" nor do I find the name in any of the books or Catalogues. Are you sure it is a fungus?


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received March 11


Vol. 11 (3) [J 280]


Albany, Mar. 15th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


No. 1 Nov. 13 is a beautiful specimen of Lentinus Lecomtei Fr.

2 Is not a good Excipula. That genus as defined in Handbook should have the perithecia hispid - in your specimen it is glabrous.


I am disposed to think your plant is some imperfect Phacidium. It is remarkable for its minute yellow spores and for the singular exserted filaments that appear in some of the plants. I confess myself unable to locate it.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


P. S. I have received fertile specimens from Mr. Warne, like the inclosed and now have no doubt of yours. I do not remember the year so return the specimen.




Received March 16



Vol. 11 (12) [J 271]


Albany, Mar. 31st, 1875


My Dear Sir,


1 Mar. 14 is without fruit and so remains incog. Mar. 29 on wall paper appears to be Macrosporium chartarum Pk. (25th Report p. 93). The flocci, however, are not so well developed in your specimens as in the type. Cooke in last No. of Grevillea makes Nodularia Balsamicola Pk. to be Aleurodiscus amorphus Rabh.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[on back; no received note]


Vol. 11 (15) [J 265]


Albany, Apr. 9, 1875


My Dear Sir,


of Apr. 8th: The sendings

x1 Pestalozzia Guepini Desm.

x2 Cladosporium epiphyllum?

3 No spores

x4 Seems an imperfect state.

5 No spores.

6 No spores perhaps some Hypoxylon.

x7 Lophiostoma triseptata Pk.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received Ap. 10


Vol. 11 (18) [J 263 -a  U.S. postcard]


Albany, Apr. 14th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of Apr. 8

A & B I can make nothing as there is no fruit.


Apr. 10

The mosses are Fissidens grandifrons - two forms, and Hypnum molle.


Of the fungi

2 is Trichia clavata

x4 is a Valsa - but I am uncertain as to the species. The others are not good.

xA. Apr. 11 has the appearance of Sphaerella maculaeformis Pers. but is without fruit and so uncertain.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[no note]



Vol. 11 (19) [J 264 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Apr. 16th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of Apr. 18 I can only make out the following:

x3 Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R. (Probably would now be placed in Sporormia.

7 Puccinia Caricis DC.

x8 Apparently Leptostroma vulgare Fr.


The others are not good or in poor condition.


x9 I do not recognise the Sclerotium. From Sclerotia grow some Agarics, Typhulae, Pezizae, Polyactis etc.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[No note]


Vol. 11 (21) [J 258]


Albany, Apr. 30th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of Apr. 27th

x1 Discosia alnea Lib. These are the larger dots. The smaller ones are something I do not know.

x4 Cytispora hyalosperma Fr.

x5 Ceratodon purpureus Brid.

x6 Sphaerella probably, but no fruits.

x9 Leptostroma vulgare Fr.

x11 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode.

x12 Clavaria mucida Pers.

20 Probably a Discosia but sterile

x21 Sphaerella but no spores.

x23 Ceratodon purpureus Brid.

x2 Leptostroma filicnum Fr. (On stem)

x16 This has the fruit of a Myxormia, but the perithecia are carbonaceous, sphaeroid and smooth, so that it cannot well be placed in that genus, nor do I  know of any to receive it. It probably represents a new genus and species, which it is your privilege to name.


The other specimens are not determinable, being without fruit or only in an imperfect condition.


So also of Apr. 28th I find only two things good.

x5 Cytispora Micheneri B. & C. so far as can be determined without any description for Berkeley merely mentions it without describing.

x6 Is a peculiar thing, perhaps a Nectria. I would like more specimens of this before deciding.


Do you remember the fungus on Poenix leaves which Dr. Curtis doubtfully referred to Excipula laevigata. I have about concluded that it is Graphiola Phoenicis Poit., though I never should have recognised it from the figure in the Handbook in which the hairs very much overshadow the peridia, but it may be the hairs are more fully develped sometimes than they were in any of your specimens.


Can you send more of this?


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton  [first this has been used in a while]


[Received no note]


Vol. 11 (22) [J 257]


Albany, May 8th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The specimens now sent on Phoenix (May 7) show the long hairs well and take away all doubt. It is clearly Graphiola Phoenicis Poit.


I conclude that the other (6 Apr. 28) is Cenangium aucupariae Fr. although there is no whitish meal on the perithecia. It however agrees in this respect, as well as others, with specimens authenticated by Cooke.


"A May 7" has no spores and is not determinable.


Cooke writes me that such compound names as "Mariae-Wilsoni" will not stand. He writes thus "Puccinia Mariae-Wilsoni is a published name - but as it does not follow the laws of the binomial system is liable to be changed to morrow- which it could not be if it were Puccinia Mariae - or Puccinia Wilsoni - nor is any one in changing the name obliged to use either of these names - which being applied wrongly may be wholly superseded".


He wishes me to substitute Puccinia Claytoniae Cooke for Puccinia Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton on the ground that the latter name is not proper and that the former was given ten years ago though never published by

description nor specimens. He admits that the strict law of priority would not require the change by says "out of courtesy any European mycologist would withdraw a new name in such a case" Of course I was wholly unaware that Cooke had given the name P. Claytoniae to the species when I told you it was new. As the name is yours I submit the matter for your consideration, and will do just what you say in the matter, though it strikes me that Cooke is a little John Bullish in asking the substitution of an unpublished name for a published one even though the latter may not be quite in form - especially as it is complimentary to a lady. I wonder that he thinks courtesy is all due in one direction and none in the other.


In the mean time the species dedicated to Miss Wilson in the 27th & 28th Reports can readily be reached if you think Cooke stands on good ground in regard to compound specific names, for those reports are not yet published. My correspondence with Cooke is yet friendly and I mean to keep it so if possible, but he has indicated a somewhat bullying disposition since I declined to help him in his projected American Mycology, telling me that if I wish to maintain a prominent place among American Mycologists I had better reconsider my determination, that publication of a species in a report is not sufficient to secure it, and other insinuations of this kind which I fear will not have the desired effect on me.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 


Received May 10


Vol. 11 (28) [J 252]


Albany, May 11th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of May 8th

1 I fear I shall be obliged to give this up. I have often examined it but never find it in fruiting state.

x2 Sterile.

x3 Septoria       I find no Septoria described on Solidago.

x4 I suspect a Pilidium but am not sure.

x5 This is a sterile state of Aleurodiscus amorphus (Pers.) apparently. The disk is much paler than in the fertile plant.

x6 It seems to be on Pyrus Americana and I think is an undescribed Melogramma.

x7 Imperfect.

x8Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R.

x9 Sterile.


Of May 10th

x1 & x3 Sphaeria moriformis Tode.

2 Sporidesmium concinnum Berk.

4 Sphaeria exilis A. & S.

5 Poor condition.


Sphaeria exilis is described as "astomous" but in your specimens the ostiola are clearly present when moist, though obscure when dry. In every other respect the agreement is so good that I have no doubt of the correctness of the determination. I wish you might have specimens to spare of 4 & 2 May 10 also of 6 May 8.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received [no note]


Vol. 11 (29) [J 251]


Albany, May 18th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of May 14

x1 Cytispora leucosperma Fr.

x2, x3, &x4 Sterile or imperfect


Of May 15

x2 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr.

x3 Myxosporium nitidum B. & C.

x6 Polyporus versicolor Fr. (small)

x7 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode

x9 Sphaeropsis or Diplodia - I find both kinds of spores.

x12 Seems to be Cenangium Prunastri Fr.


Others sterile or imperfect.


May 16

3 Sphaeria spermoides Hoffm. New to us.  Others not good.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received May 20


Vol. 11 (30) [J 250]


Albany, May 19th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Yours concerning  compound names and publication in Reports is  quite satisfactory. I hope you may not be permitted to withdraw the name in question for no reasonable person would ask such a thing. If any one is brazen enough to meddle with it let him have what credit he can gain thereby.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received May 21


Vol. 11 (32) [J 248]


Albany, May 22d, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The two specimens of May 18 are not good.


Of May 19th

x1 Valsa Platani Schw. but it seems to be imperfect. I find no asci but the spores are abundant.

x2 Poor condition but seems to be Phoma Petersii B. & C.

x3 Fusarium lateritium Nees.


The remaining numbers are in such condition that I can make nothing of them.


I have put in manuscript with description the genus Peckia Clinton*, the species P. Clintonii Pk. standing according to your suggestion. In it the spores are concatenate and involved in mucus as in Myxormia, the perithecia being quite at variance with the characters of that genus. I think it is perhaps best to extend the spore character of the genus Peckia so as to include the "unknown thing" on Sarracenia. In it the spores are concatenate but not involved in mucus. The chains of spores are also branched. You have this to name and the Melogramma on bark of Mountain Ash

(6 May 8).


If you should happen to go to Portage about the time the pine aments are out please remember that we need a good specimen of Pinus mitis.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck




[*Peck uses his code for underlining authorities or putting putting them in parentheses - cf. letter above, following Curtis]


Vol. 11 (33) [J 247]


[no heading, perhaps related to letter number 34, following, and an extension of it]


My Dear Sir,


Of May 21st

x2 is Lophiostoma triseptata Pk.

x3 Sterile form of Coryneum clavisporum Pk.

x1 & x4 Not good


May 24th

x3 sterile but apparently Vermicularia Liliacearum

x7 Apparently Stilbum smaragdinum A. & S.


New to us.

x8 Cheirospora botryospora Fr.

9 Cystopus candidus Lev.

10 Aecidium Urticae as you say.

x11 Phoma nebulosum (Berk.)

x13 Sphaeria subconica C. & P.

x14 Sphaeria       ?

x15 Leptostroma vulgare Fr.


The others are not in determinable condition.


Let us than call 6 May 8

x Melogramma superficialis P. & C.


I was in error in referring x3 Apr. 13 to Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R. Refer it to Sphaeria minima Awd.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received [no note]


Vol. 11 (34) [J 246]


Albany, May 29th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Many thanks for Pinus mitis.


The fungus in the packet with it I take to be Polyporus marginatus Fr. I am not able to make much of the specimens of May 26th.

x2 Vermicularia dematium Fr.

x7 Streptothrix atra B. & C>

8 Ditiola radicata Fr.

x14 Sporocybe Persicae Fr.

x19, x20, x21 Sphaerella maculaeformis Pers.

x22 Perenospora parasitica Pers.

x23 Septoria Polygalae P. & B. This I take to be new.

x24 Cladosporium herbarum in part. The others are unsatisfactory.


May 27

xA Ceratium hydnoides A. & S.

xB Undetermined.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received June 2


Vol. 11 (36) [J 243 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, June 1st, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of May 30

x1 Aecidium Violae as you say.

x9 Cenangium Cerasi Fr.

x10 Sphaeria moriformis Tode.

x14 Cryptosporium Noveboracense B. & C.

x15 Cytispora chrysosperma Fr.

x16 Melanconium disseminatum Fr.

x17 contains two or three things which I have separated and will return at a future time.

x6 is a Peziza of which I would like more. It may be new, but I must look farther.


The others are not good.

B May 27 may be Sphaeria pulveracea.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received no note]


Vol. 11 (37) [J 244 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, June 9th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


I have three packets of specimens form you but am obliged to defer their examination a little while in consequence of an inflamed eye. It seems necessary that I should have an annual reminder that my eyes are made of flesh not of glass.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received June 12


Vol. 11 (44) [J 235]


Albany, June 29th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


My eye is nearly well again, so that I go out collecting, but am a little cautious about using it much with the microscope. It feels a trifle weak yet.


I am glad Puccinia Mariae-Wilsoni is not to be disturbed. It is no wonder Cooke thinks I do not feel as cordial towards him as I might after all the snubbing he has given me of late. Were I alone treated in this way I should think that perhaps I deserved it, but I hear complaints of similar treatment from at least two other correspondents of his, so that I think the fault can not all be on this side of the water. Though I can not help feeling his unfair treatment somewhat, still I purpose bearing a good deal of it before I shall be betrayed into any hostility of word or deed, both for the sake of a right spirit and for the sake of science, for it gets no good from quarrels among its votaries.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 


Received July 1


Vol. 11 (45) [J 234]


Albany, July 16th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Your last packet (July 12) contains as follows:

x1 Ozonium auricomum Lk., according to Dr. Curtis specimens. It is probably an imperfect state of some Hymenomycetous fungus. I find no spores.

x2 Pilobolus crystallinus Tode.

x3 Clavaria fusiformis Sow.

x4 No spores.

x5 Valsa aculeans Schw.

x6 Puccinia Calthae Lk.


I inclose specimens of Stilbum rhoidis B. & C. and also return No. 17 May 30th separated, as it was somewhat mixed. I hope to work up your back numbers as I get opportunity.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received July 17


Vol. 11 (48) [J 231]


Albany, July 24th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of July 21st

x1 Valsa aculeans Schw. as you say, at least it has that appearance but is not in fruit.

x2 I am not sure if this is a Valsa. It is not like V. aculeans.

x3 Ramularia Nemopanthis C. & P.

x4 Exobasidium Cassandrae Pk. Mss. I found good fruiting specimens two or three weeks ago.

x5 Imperfect if a fungus.

x6 Insect work.

x7 This is Schweinitz's Sphaeria Sarraceniae, but is is a Sphaerella - Sphaerella Sarraceniae (Schw.)

x8 Vermicularia    sp. incert.

x9 Septoria Erigerontis Pk.

x10 Diderma Mariae-Wilsoni Clinton.


If you can spare some more of No. 2 I will try it again.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received July 26


Vol. 11 (52) [J 225]


Albany, Aug. 7th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of July 24th

x1 & x3 Sphaeria spiculosa Pers.  Schweinitz describes it as S. aculeata,

but I do not think it distinct.

x2 Imperfect.

x4 Helotium herbarum Fr.

x5 Diachaea elegans Fr.


July 26

xA Septoria Verbascicola B. & C. fide Dr. C's specimens. Berkeley does not describe it however as his specimens were sterile.

xB Agaricus (Collybia) dryophilus Bull.

xC. Agaricus (Pluteus) admirabilis Pk.

xD. Agaricus (Pleurotus) petaloides Bull./

xE Clavaria species uncertain.

xF. Ag. petaloides. = D.


July 27

x3 Sphaeria pulicaris Pers.

x7 Hypoxylon concentricum Grev. but young

x8 Leptostroma vulgare Fr.

x12 Thelephora pallida as you say.

x14 Stemonitis ferruginea Shrh.

x15 Stemonitis fusca Roth.

x16 Helotium aeruginosum Fr. as you name.

x17 Solenia fasciculata Pers.

x18 Peziza cinerea Batsch.

x21 In poor condition but looks like Agaricus (Pleurotus) applicatus Batsch.

x22 Puccinia aculeata Schw. as you say.

x25 Cladosporium Callae P. & C. n. sp. A fine thing. Can you spare a little more.

x26 Stereum rugosum Fr.

x27 Hypocrea citrina Fr. on old Polyporus. The black seems nothing good. The other numbers of this date are imperfect, indeterminable or non fungoid.


July 29th

x2 Pilobolus crystallinus Tode

x1 & x3 Nothing good.


July 30th

x1 Sporocybe byssoides Fr. Returned

x2 Without fruit.

x3 Septoria emaculata P. & C. n. sp.

x4 Macrosporium Cheiranthi Fr.

x5 Poor and uncertain

x6 Poor and uncertain

x7 Too old

x8 & x10 Imperfect and uncertain

x9 Corticium sulfureum Fr. Can you furnish more.

x11 Without fruit but has the look of Septoria Toxicodendri Curtis.

x2 July 21 I have concluded to describe as Sphaeria leptasca P. & C. n. sp.


Schweinitz's Synopsis of North American Fungi is in the IV. Vol. (New Series) of the Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. (1834) beginning at page 141. I do not know that it has ever been reprinted.


I have not made any very long or expensive trips thus far this season, as I feel the need of economy in the uncertain event of getting my traveling expenses refunded. My traveling expenses of last year were not allowed, the Committee claiming that the amended constitution forbids the Legislature from auditing the bill, and as there is no telling when the promised Board of Audit will be organised I make my expenses as light as possible.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


P. S. I am unable to say what is the matter with the Sagittaria leaf you send. The spots seem neither gall-like nor fungoid. Perhaps it would be well to watch for further development.


Received [no note]



Vol. 11 (53) [J 223 - upside down!]


Albany, Aug. 12th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Of Aug. 9th

x1 Imperfect

x2 Sphaeria perisparioides B. & C.

x3 Imperfect

x4 Imperfect

x5 Vermicularia    species uncertain.

x6 Septoria destruens Desm.

x7 Agaricus (Galera) sphagnorum Pers.

x8 Agaricus species uncertain.

x9 Cystopus cubicus Str. I was formerly in error in referring here the species on Canada thistle, which belongs to C. spinulosus. The general look and the conidia appear to me to be about the same in all, but as separated by their habitat the species are nominally as follows:

Cystopus candidus Lev. On Cruciferae

Cystopus cubicus Str. On Tragopogon

Cystopus spinulosus DeBy On Cirsium arvense

Cystopus Amaranthi Schw. On Amaranthus

Cystopus Portulacae DC. On Portulaca oleracea


Cystopus Lepigoni DeBy on Spergularia has not yet occurred with us. The others have. Can you spare more of 9. ---

x10 Hypoxylon    too young.

11 Not good

x12 Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

13 Filaments - indeterminable

14 Sphaeria?

15 No fungus

16 Seems insecty.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[no note]



Vol. 11 (54) [J 222 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Aug. 14th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


You have done a fine thing, viz. added two Pucciniae to our list.

x5 Puccinia Gentianae Strauss.

& x6 Puccinia Physostegiae P. & C. The last one I do not find described and so name it as a new species.

x1 Sphaeria acuminata Sow.

x2 Uncertain

x3 No fruit but will probably prove to be Erysiphe lamp [rocarpa Lev.]

x4 Vermicularia Liliaecearum Schw.

x8 Cladosporium herbarum Lk.

x9 & x9 are imperfect.


Can you spare more of 5 & 6.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received Aug. 16


Vol. 11 (56) [J 220 & 221, two sheets]


Albany, Aug. 17th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


I have examined some of your back numbers with the following results.


July 1st

x2 Puccinia Lychnidearum Lk.

x4 Septoria Dianthi R. & D. (fide Dr. C's specimens)

x6 Stemonitis fusca Roth.

x7 Patellaria indigotica C. & P.

x9 Fissidens minutulus Sulliv. Mr. Austin regards both this and F. exiguus as varieties of Fissidens incurvus.

x10 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev. Probably. I find no spores.

x13 Aecidium Berberidis as you suppose.


The remaining numbers are not good or not in determinable condition.


 14 is probably a Reticularia but it is all broken into fragments. 12 is perhaps the spermatoid condition of some Sphaeria.


July 5th

x2 Schizophullum commune Fr.

x6 Nectria Peziza Fr.

x7, x8, & x9 Licea cylindrica Fr.

x10 Aecidium Ranunculacearum DC.


The others not good or not determinable


July 6th


The only ones of any account here are

x1 Septoria destruens Desm.

x2 Macrosporium Cheiranthi Fr.


July 9th

x7 Puccinia Veratri Clinton.

x2 Dacrymyces fragiformis Nees.

x4 Vermicularia concentrica P. & C. n.sp.

x6 Septoria Rubi B. & C. variety

x1 Arcyria punicea Pers.


x8 Sphaeronema spina according to Dr. Curtis but the sporea are not as Berkeley describes in that species. Because of this discrepancy I once sent it to Booke, but he turned it over to Berkeley and I never heard from it afterwards. Whether the error is with Berkeley or Curtis I do not know.

x9 Peziza cinera Batsch.

x10 Hygrophorus aurantiacoluteus B. & C.

x11 Dothidea Trifolii Fr.

x12 Lentinus LeComtei Fr.

x15 Sphaeria acuminata Sow.

x16 Cladosporium Herbarum Lk.

Poor and imperfect ones omitted.


[second sheet]


July 17th

x5 Peziza vinosa A. & S.

x7 = 8 July 9th

x8 Sphaeria Cephalanthi Schw., but is a Diatrype and should stand Diatrype (Diatrypella) Cephalanthi (Schw.) More would be desirable if you have it to spare.

x9 Septoria destruens Desm. The other numbers are nothing good.


Aug. 13th

xA The white film consists of minute filaments which look some like the spores of many Septoria but it seems to me to be an imperfect state of



The black is in worse condition yet. I find no evidence of spores in it and so must leave it incog.


Very truly Yours


Chas. H. Peck


[on back of either sheet] Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (63) [J 212 & 213, two sheets]


Albany, Sept. 3d, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The fine rains of August allured me away in quest of Agarics, Boleti, etc., and now on my return I find another accumulation of specimens for names from various sources. I have looked at a part of yours with these results.


Aug. 16th

x1 Microsphaera diffusa C. & P.

x4 Polyporus elegans Fr.

x5 Spathularia flavida Pers.

x6 Microsphaera Russellii Clint.

x7 Hymenochaete tabacina Lev. = (Stereum tabacinum Fr.)

x10 Phyllosticta Violae Desm. I see no good reason for separating from Septoria

x11 Peziza cinerea Batsch? Paler than usual

x12 Polyporus versicolor Fr. (resupinate)

x13 Lactarius camphoratus Fr. probably. It has a decided odor.


The remaining numbers are imperfect or not good.


Aug. 16 & 17 (part of the numbers have one date, part the other)

1 Looks like Aethalium but species uncertain

x2 No spores.

x3 Puccinia Convolvuli

x4 Uredo form of the same

x5 Sporocybe byssoides Fr.

x6 Puccinia Anemones Pers.

x7 No spores.


Aug. 23d

1 Uredo form of Puccinia corontat.

x3 Berkeley separates this as Discosia rugulosa B. & C.

x4 Septoria Erigerontis Pk.

x6 Septoria Oenotherae B. & C. (fide Dr. C.)

x8 Macrosporium Cheiranthi Fr.

x9 Puccinia Galiorum Lk.

x15 Leotia lutea (Pk.)

x16 Puccinia graminis Pers.

x17 Diderma vernicosum Pers.

x18 Marsmius [sic] decurrens Pk.

x19 Peziza vinosa A. & S.

x21 Craterium oboratum [sic] Pk.

x22 Lycoperdon pyriforme Schaeff.

x23 Lycoperdon young & species uncertain

x24 Geoglossum velutipes Pk. in ed. in last years Report.

x25 Torrubia ophioglossoides Ful.

x26 Peziza aurantia?

27 Peziza sp. uncertain

28 Peziza hemispherica?

x29 Peziza macropus Pers.

30 Boletus piperatus? (young & small)

x31 Peziza hemispherica Wigg. [?sp.]


Omitted numbers sterile or imperfect.


Aug. 24th


I can not do much with these.

x6 Agaricus (Omphalia) Campanella Batsch.

x14 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr.

x16 Sphaeria minima Awd.

x23 Licea cylindrica Fr.

x24 Crucibulum vulgare Tul.

x27 Trichia chrysosperma DC.

x34 Tubercularia vulgare Tode.

x37 Sphaeria pulvispyrius Pers.

x36 Hymenochaeta tabacina Lev.

29 Some sterile Mnium.


Several Myxogasters are so badly crushed that I can do nothing with them.


12 is a Hypocrea, I think new and regret there is so little of it.


Aug. 25th

x1 Thelephora sebacea Fr.

x3 Geoglossum luteum Pk.

x4 Spathularia flavida Pers.

x5 Clavaria fusiformis Sow.

x6, x7, x8 & x9 Clavaria pulchra Pk. in last year's Report.

10 Clavaria inaequalis?

x11 Poor but seems like 5

x12 & x13 Clavaria tetragona Schw.

x17 & x18 Xylaria corniformis Fr. var. with compressed club.

x21, x22, x223, x24, x27, x31 Thelephora pallida Schw.

x32 appears to be a variety of the same.


[second sheet]


Aug. 25 continued

x26 Clavaria spinulosa Pers.

x28 Clavaria aurea Schaeff

33 Clavaria Kunzei Fr.


The others are uncertain.


Aug. 26th

x1 Hypocrea alutacea Fr.

2 Marasmius campanulatus Pk.

x4 Leotia viscosa Fr. ?

x6 & x7 Leotia lubrica Fr.

x8 Leotia lutea Pk.

x11 Stereum fasciatum Fr.

13 Spathularia flavida Pers. var.

x10 Agaricus (Clitocybe) infundibuliformis?


Others uncertain


I return several marked "No duplicate"


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received no note either sheet]


Vol. 11 (66) [J 209]


Albany, Sept. 25th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


I began to be afraid that I should not make sufficient additions to the collection to be satisfactory and was thus induced to take a trip to the woods where fungi are more plenty than here. I have just returned and find some packets from you and others awaiting me. I will look at them as soon as I can. I am yet back on several sent me in June. I find the demands on my time constantly increasing as correspondents are springing up in new places frequently. Most of the specimens sent require microscopic examinatiion and therefore time, but I hope to work through it all in time.


I would be glad to send occasionally descriptions of new species for publication in the Buffalo Bulletin but Prof. Hall has for some time been desirous of issuing a Bulletin from this Institution and he seems more earnest in the matter since the Legislature, the two last sessions, has failed to order extra copies of the Cbinet report. If he should do this I fear everything I could do would have to go in that direction.


My eye has not been seriously inflamed since the time I had with it in the summer but I am now and then reminded that I must not use it too severely.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (68) [J 207]


Albany, Oct. 11th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


I inclose a couple of flies just taken from a window where they hung lifeless surrounded by the little patch of deposited spores. I scraped off some of the spores and enclose them also in a bit of paper.


The fungus appears to work mainly within the body of the fly and appears externally through the joints of the abdomen as you will see by examining these flies with a glass. According to the Handbook it is but an imperfect condition of Saprobynia [sp.?] ferax. See Vol. 11 p. 639.


I hope to get at the examination of your specimens before long.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (70) [J 202, 204, 205 [no 203?], three sheets!]


[a fourth if you include a small paper J 203, with faint delicate pencil drawings of spores of "Puccinia Saxifragarum From European specimens, and Puccinia Tiarellae B. & C. fide Dr. Curtis From your specimens but not according to Berkeley".


[before Nov. 1st, 1875]


Aug. 30th

x1 Dichaena strumosa Fr. (fide Ravenel's Specimens)

x2 Peziza      ? (in poor condition)

x3 Sphaeria    ? (in poor condition)

x4 Polyporus       (species uncertain)

x5 Sphaeria fimbriata Pers.

x6                 (too young)

x7 Polyporus vesiculosus B. & C.

x8 Diderma flavidum Pk.

x9 Clavaria fusiformis Sow.

x10 Probably = 8 but is in poor condition.

x11 If a fungus it is very imperfect.x12 Diderma farinaceum Pk.

x13 Imperfect

x14 Some Peziza affected by a parasite.

x15 Peziza macropus Pers.

x16 In poor condition.

x17 Sphaeria coprophila Fr.

x18 Peziza scutellata L.

x19 Sphaeria       ?

x20 Trichia clavata Pers.

x21 Hypoxylon multiforme Fr.

x22 No fungus.

x23 Probably Diachaea elegans (but very poor)

x24 Uncertain

x25 Hysterium lineare Fr. variety

x26 Panus stypticus (Bull.) Fr.

x27 Uncertain

x28 Sphaeria pulvis-pyrius (more scattered than usual)

[an "o" instead of an "x"] 29 Torrubia militaris Fr.

x30 Oidium corticale Pk.

x31 Hysterium tumidum Buby fide Booke. It looks to me like a Phacidium

o 32 Clavaria pulchra Pk.

o 33 Clavaria pulchra Pk.

o 34 Calocera palmata Schum.

o 35 Uncertain

o 36 I do not find this number

x37 Leotia lubrica Fr.

x38 Geoglossum luteum Pk.

x39 Geoglossum Peckianum Ck.

x40 Xylaria acuta Pk.

x41 Xylaria acuta Pk.? The spores are a little longer in this.


[second sheet]


x13 Apparently the beginning of Scorias spongiosa

x14 Uncertain

x15 Septoria Lobeliae Pk.

x16 Stemonitis fusca Roth.

x17 & x18 Uromyces Arisaemae Ck.

x19 Uncertain

x20 Uncertain

x21 Vermicularia Dematium?

x22 No fungus

x23 Uncertain

x24 Vermicularia Liliaearum Schw.

x25, x26 & x27 = 10 Sept. 5

x28 No fruit   x29 Uncertain  x30 & x31 Uncertain

x32 Imperfect

x33 Oidium corticale Pk.  x34 & x35 Imperfect

x36 Zygodesmus hydroides B. & C.

x37 & x39 Merulius lacrymans Fr.

x38 Hymenochaete rubiginosa Lev.  Fries in his new edition of Epicrisis retains this under Stereum.

x40 Uncertain

41 Lycoperdon pedicellatum Pk. (old)

x42 & x43 Imperfect.


Sept. 15

x1 Sphaerotheca Castagnei Lev.

x2 Sphaeria perispoioides as you have it

x3 Puccinia Menthae with its Uredo form - Trichobasis Labiatarum


Sept. 5th

1 Aspergillus glaucus Lk.

2 No fungus

x3 Septoria species uncertain

x4 Uncertain

x5 Sterile

x6 Dothidea graminis Fr.

x7 Uromyces Arisaemae Ck.

x8 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.

9 Uncertain

x10 Sphaeria (Depazea) cruenta Fr. The spots on the leaves.

Whether the one on the shrivelled leaf is another form of the same I am not sure.

x11 Sterile

12 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.


Sept. 3d.

x1  Trametes rubescens A. & S. running off into Lenzites.

x2 Not in determinable condition

x3 Agaricus (Pholiota) squarrosus Mull.

x4 Apparently Sporocybe byssoides as you say but the heads have fallen off so that it is uncertain.

x5 = 4

x6 Diderma farinaceum Pk.

7 Imperfect   8 Uncertain

x9 Uncertain.

x10 Dr. Curtis used to refer this to Puccinia Tiarelliae B. & C., but Berkeley in his Notices N. A. Fungi, refers it to Puccinia Saxifragarum Schl. and describes something else as P. Tiarellae B. & C. I have never seen specimens corresponding to Berkeley's description of P. Tiarellae. I had (depending on Dr. C's authentication) given a description, under the name P. Tiarellae B. & C. (see 25th Report p. 115) of the form which Berkeley evidently refers to P.  Saxifragarum. Now I have good European specimens of P. Saxifragarum and am fully satisfied in my own mind that Berkeley has made a mistake in lumping this form in with P. Saxifragarum. I send you an outline of the spores of the two, that you may see for yourself, the difference in shape. Now allowing that there are two species on Tiarella leaves, of which I have published one and Berkeley afterwards another, both under one name (P. Tiarellae B. & C.) and both distinct from P. Saxifragarum, or any other published species, what is to be done. Which form should retain the name P. Tiarellae? If the one I first described as that species, then that is thename of your specimen. If the one that Berkeley describes as that, then your specimen ad all others that I have seen on Tiarella leaves are without a name in my opinion.


This is one of the evils that arise from trying to observe cabinet names.


Berkeley has also changed Puccinia mesomajalis B. & C. as distributed by Dr. Curtis to Puccinia mesomegala B. & C. Also Sphinctrina Cerasi B. & C. to Sphinctrina gummae B. & C. and I know not how many more.

-11 Trichia serpula Pers.

x12 Sphaerotheca Castagnei Lev.


[third sheet]


Sept. 10th


Many of these are sterile or not in determinable condition. I make out the following numbers.

x1 Crucibulum vulgare Tul.

x2 Sphaeria bombarda Batsch.

o 3 Stemonitis physaroides A. & S.

x7 Calocera cornea Fr.

x8 Lichen crust.

x11 Valsa Americana B. & C. (fide Dr. Curtis)

x13 Valsa colliculus Wormsk.

x15, x16 & x27 seem to be all the same. Probably Cenangium Pinastri Fr. but I find no fruit.

x21 Licea ochracea Pk.

x22 Probably the same, but not in good condition.

x24 Craterium obovatum Pk.

x28 Discosia alnea Lib.

x34 Helotium rugipes Pk.

x36 Craterium obovatum Pk.

x41 Ascobolus furfuraceus Pers.

x42 Sphaeria Coprophila Fr.

x45 & 46 Hymenochaete rubiginosa Tul.

x47 Trichia chrysosperma DC.

o 49 Calocera viscosa Fr.

x50 Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw.


Sept. 28


A large number of poor things in this also.

2 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.

x4 Sphaerotheca astagnei Lev.

x7 Puccinia Menthae Pers.

o 8 Ustilago utriculosa Tul.

x11 Puccinia Compositarum Sch.

x12 Uredo pustulata Pers.

x17 Septoria Toxicodendri Curtis.

x20 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.

x28 I find here some Cladosporium some Macrosporium and some Epicoccum, but it is not possible to separate them


Oct. 3d.

x2 Seems to be Phlebia radiata Fr.

x4 Scorias spongiosa Schw.

x7 Hysterium tumidum Duby (fide Cooke)

x14 Vermicularia Liliacearum Schw.


Oct. 4th

x1 Diatrype obesa B. & C.

x5 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

x6 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode

x7 Probably the same discolored.

x8 Phyllactinia guttata Lev.

x15 Fusidium flavovirens Fr.

x16 Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev.


Oct. 5

x2 Phytisma Ilicis-Canadensis Schw. regarded as distinct from R. Rini.

x6 Tremella mesenterica Retz.

11 Cladosporium Herbarum Lk.

x18 Leptostroma filicinum Fr.

x14 Peridermium balsameum Pk.

x22 Hysterium Rousselii DeNot. The spruce I regard as Abies nigra - starved form.


Sept. 29th.

x7 Polythrincium Trifolii is the only one determinable here.

4 The yellow dots are evidently glands of the leaf.


I have no doubt that the minute dots on many of the leaves sent are the beginnings of Sphaerias or Sphaerellas but being sterile they are not safely referred. I regret that I can not make out more of them, but such minute fellows are a terrible strain to the eyes, adn I do not like to work over them longer than is necessary. The June packets are yet back but I hope to get at them sometime.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (71) [J 201]


Albany, Nov. 1st, 1875


My Dear Sir,


the pretty little Peziza from Sodus Point is P. aurantia Fr. It reached me in fine condition.


I think as you do in reference to the Puccinia on Tiarella leaves, that it is best to give it a new name with explanation, and purpose calling it Puccinia spreta.


Prof. Gray calls the Amherst Catalogue a model one, and it certainly has a neat good look about it. True the part relating to fungi has some typographical errors and some names now out of date, but the plan seems a good one.


Snow is flying in the air here to day - a sorry sight to botanists. I hope your cold row on the lake may not work any ill to your health.


The little Craterium does not seem to care what he grows on.


I inclose the specimens that you wish returned.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received -no note]


Vol. 11 (72) [J 200 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Nov. 3d, 1875


My Dear Sir,


Specimens of Oct. 28

x2 & x6 appear to be small Solenia fasciculata Pers.

x3 Aegerita candida Pers.

x4 & 5 Some Sclerotium

x8 Lenzites sepiaria Fr.

9 Polyporus hirsutus Fr.

x13 Epicoccum neglectum Desm.

x17 Cladosporium Typhae Schw.

x16 Puccinia obtecta Pk. Early state.

x20 Hysterium commune Fr.

x21 Polyporus Vaillantii Fr.?

x22 Hypoxylon fuscum Too old.

26 Helvella       ?

x27 Leotia lutea (Pk.)


Others not good


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (74) [J 197]


Albany, Nov. 15th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The mosses and lichens from Bermuda are with a single exception sterile and as I do not recognise them it is not very safe or satisfactory to try to determine them in such condition.


No. 2 is some Leptogium or perhaps Collema.

No. 12 seems Cladonia deformis Hoffm.

No. 17 Andraea petrophila Ehrh.

No. 18 Racomitrium - perhaps R. fasciculare.


Reports 27 and 28 are yet in the hands of the printer. No extra copies of either were ordered by the Legislature. I suppose only the documentary edition will be printed unless some additional authorization is given to the printer. I hope this may be done. Notwithstanding delays and discouragement in printing a new report is in order and I am now at work on botanical part of 29th.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received -no note]


[Note how lavish some of the Niagara Reservation reports are - to check the money angle there for comparison.]


Vol. 11 (77) [J 194 - a U.S. postcard]


[Nov.  1875]


Does Helotium rugipes belong to Pelastra or to Calycella?



Where does Aleurodiscus belong?


Between Helotium & Patellaria

Where does Ectostroma Schw. belong?


Spurious, throw it out.

Where does Labrella Fr. belong?


Next to Cytispora according to Fries.

Where does Nodularia, Peck belong?


is a synonym of Aleurodiscus

Where does Ramularia, (whose is he) belong?


[no answer?]

To which series do the following belong?

Valsa torulosa B. et C. Valsella probably

  Valsa Pini, A. et S.  l Valsella

Valsa Americana B. et C.  Valsella probably

Valsa colliculus, Wormsk. l Valsella

Valsa aculeans, Schw. = rufescens Schw.

1. femoralis (macrospora, Peck crossed out - by Peck?) 2. Tuberculost[oma?]

Valsa Platani, Schw.  1 Valsella  2. rufescens, Schw.  1 Valsella

Valsa centripeta, Fr.  1 Valsella

   I do not think it best to try to do anything more with B. & C. species till Berkeley publishes them. There is no certainty what he will do with them.


Received -[ no note, Albany postmark Nov. 27]


[Perhaps the ultimate in economy: Clinton's postcard is crammed enough, but not so much that Peck cannot write his replies on the same card, have the Buffalo cancellation blotted, cancel again from Albany and return the same card! Perhaps to check the card for accuracy again. Apparently Clinton prepared the postcard, addressed it to himself and mailed in to Peck to spare Peck trouble and expense. The next postcard was prepared the same way.]

[Note a postcard possibly continuing this one placed in the files between number 78 and 79 below.]


Vol. 11 (no number - perhaps sent with the postcard above) [J 193])

- a U.S. postcard]




Peziza hesperidea, C. et P.  Aleuria (Macropodes)

Peziza floccosa, Schw.       Lachnea (Sarcoscyphae)

Peziza translucida, B. & C.Lachnea (Desyscyphae)

Peziza Tiliae, Peck          Lachnea (Dasyscyphae)

Peziza myceticola, B. et C.  Phialea (Mollisia)


var. of vulgaris

/ Peziza erinacea, Schw.             Lachnea (Sarcoscyphae)

\ Peziza [erineum, Schw. crossed out] [Lachnea (Sarcoscyphae)]

Peziza Agassizii, B et. C.           Lachnea (Dasyscyphae)

Peziza occidentalis, Schw.           Lachnea (Sarcoscyphae)

Peziza Delinii [sp.?], Rabh.         Phialea (Mollisia)

Peziza aurata, B. et R.  I do not know this, nor do I find it mentioned either by Berk. or Cooke in their lists.


[Received - no note]


[Addressed by Clinton to himself. Albany postmark Nov. 26. Note Clinton cites authorities with a comma after the epithet. He uses "et" rather than the ampersand.]



Vol. 11 (78) [J 192]


Albany, Nov. 26th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


As some of your queries require answers too long for the space on the card I repeat them here and subjoin answers.


Is Spilocaea [?sp.] of the Melanconei or Torulacei?


Fries places it next to Torula in Torulacei. Cooke thinks it a form of Cladosporium. See Grevillea No. 16 p. 64 & No. 23 p. 162.


What is Coniothecium toruloides B. & C. called now?


Cooke says that he does not see that it differs from Torula stilbospora Cd. wherefor I have latterly referred it there, though I suspect it does differ. Berkeley seems to omit it entirely in his "Notices of N. A. Fungi", as he does several other perplexing points; e.g. the Uredines and some of the Uromyces.


Where is Peckia to be placed?   


I put it immediately after Phoma.




Throw it out as spurious. Fries considers it only an imperfect state of some Hymenomycetous fungus.




Immediately before Sphaeronema.


I think Berkeley attempts to describe Gelatinosporium betulinum Pk. under the name Sphaeronema seriatum B. & C. He has as you say redescribed several things that I had previously described. In Septoria Erigerontis he has applied the same name to the same species only placing B. & C. after the name. He has probably done the same thing with Sphaeronema pruinosum. Sphaeropsis anomala he applies to a different species. Some of his own names under which Dr. Curtis had distributed specimens he now changes, so that upon the whole I suspect he is going to confuse our Mycology about as much as he is going to elucidate it, especially since his descriptions are so often vague brief and unsatisfactory. I very much doubt if any one can determine half our species of Corticium from his descriptions.




I suspect should be placed near Aecidium. The plant is unknown to me.




I should place it near Helminthosporium.




Judging from the character of the plant I should place it after Perenospora and before Oidium. I do not know who is the author.


I find no Peziza erineum in Schweinitz's list. It is probably intended for P. erinacea or erinaceus. Schweinitz himslef gives both terminations, "us" in the list, "a" in the index. Berkeley adopts the latter, Cooke the former, so you can have your choice, both being sanctioned by high authority.


Peziza myceticola B. & C. is reduced now to a variety of P. vulgaris Fr. See lists both of Berkeley and Cooke.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (no number, between 78 and 79) [J 191 - a U.S. postcard]




Sphaeria continued

xSph. rostrata, Pers.       B.

xSph. Sarraceniae, Schw. (Shall I move it to Sphaerella?) Yes

x Sph. subconica, C. et P.  C

xSph. Staphylina, Peck      C

xSph. taxicola, Peck        C

xSph. Tiliae, Fr.  (Is this Rabenhorstia Liliae, Fr. after Handbook?) Yes

Sph. Verbascicola, Schw. to my notion is a Phoma


It seems to me that the over-the-water people ignore Schweinitz. [no comment from Peck]


[Received - no note.]


[Again prepared by Clinton and addressed to himself. Albany postmark Nov. 27 [1875]


Vol. 11 (unnumbered, between 79 and 80) [J 189 - a U.S. postcard]




xWhere is Ptilidium to be placed? is a genus of Hepaticae *

x Where is Protomyces to be placed? after Uredo

Where is Sarcostroma to be placed? after Coryneum

Where is Scorias to be placed? (.....[?] I suppose]


                             .....[?] Ceratium

Where is Streptothrix to be placed? after Cladosporium

* Pilidium may be intended, which stands after Discosia among the Sphaeronemei [?sp.]


[Received - no note]


[Again prepared by Clinton and addressed to himself. Albany postmark Nov. 29           ]


Vol. 11 (unnumbered, between 79 and 80) [J 188 - a U.S. postcard ]





xValsa haustellata, Fr. belongs to which? Valsella

xValsa leptasca, P. et C. belongs to which? Valsella


[Peck's writing:] I had always supposed the specimens marked A to be the next of some insect or spider, but can not actually affirm it to be so. It is my impression however that I have seen them with eggs between the two membranes. You do right in giving habitats of fungi.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received - no note]


[Prepared by Peck and addressed to Clinton, although still a continuation of Clinton's letters as his handwritten query heads the card. Albany postmark Nov. 30 ]



Vol. 11 (unnumbered, between 79 and 80) [J 187 - a U.S. postcard]




x Where is Asterina to be placed? After Rhytisma according to Berkeley

xWhere is Cheiromyces to be placed? Among the Stilbacei according to



xWhere is Dermat[o?]a to be placed? Near Patellaria

xWhere is Ectostroma to be placed? Spurious

xWhere is Glaeoporus (if kept) to be placed? = Polyporus, not kept


                                    by Berkeley

xDoes Helotium rugipes belong to Pelastra or Calycella? Calycella

xWhere is Hexagona to be placed? Fries puts it just after Daedalea.

xWhere is Myxogaster to be placed? Don't know it.

xWhere is Nodularia to be placed? = Aleurodiscus.

xWhere is Pileolaria to be placed? After Uromyces.

xWhere is Plicatura to be placed? Trogia has been emended so as to received



xWhere is Polycistis to be placed? = Urocystis, before Uromyces.


Received - no note]


[Again prepared by Clinton and addressed to himself. Albany postmark Nov. 29]


Vol. 11 (80) [J 186 - a U.S. postcard]




Where is Ozonium to be placed?

Where is Scorias, Fr. to be placed?

Where is Sarcostroma (Cooke?) to be placed


[In Peck's handwriting:] Ozonium is spurious. Leave it out entirely or place it among spurious genera at the end.


Schweinitz places Scorias immediately after Ceratium. It is as well there perhaps as anywhere.


I should place Sarcostroma Ck. immediately after Coryneum. Your specimens on bark were sent to Cooke with the inquiry if they were his Sarcostroma Berkeleyii. He replied that they were quite like it, the habitat alone making him doubt. Since then he has said nothing further about it nor have I been able to get specimens of his species from him. I doubt very much if it should be kept distinct from Coryneum.


[Received - no note]


[Again prepared by Clinton and addressed to himself. Albany postmark Nov. 29]


Vol. 11 (unnumbered, between 80 and ) [J 165 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Dec. 1st, 1875


My Dear Sir,


The "Myxogaster" is truly of the Order Myxogastres, but I believe is of the genus Licea - I should say Licea cylindrica Fr., from the color of the spores, but if bright red like a strawberry when fresh, as your notes seem to indicate then it would be Licea fragiformis Fr. The conglomerate mode of growth would indicate the same species.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[No date of receipt]


[Prepared by Peck and addressed to Clinton. Albany postmark Dec.1]



Vol. 11 (unnumbered, between 80 and  ) [J 184 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Dec. 1st, [1875]


My Dear Sir,


A glance at your specimens of Sphaeria diplodioides brings all to mind.


I afterwards concluded that it was Massaria bufonia Tul. and so think


4 & 10 March 10   l__  are Hypocrea patella C. & P., according to

17 & 21 April 18  l    Cooke's determination.


7 July 22 is Hypocrea chromosperma C. & P.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


[Prepared by Peck and addressed to Clinton. Albany postmark Dec.1]


Vol. 11 (unnumbered, 80 and ) [J 183]


Albany, Dec. 4th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


I inclose specimens of the two species of Hypocrea as desired.


They were received two or three or perhaps more years ago, and were sent to Cooke for determination. It was not until the present season that he reported them. In the mean time I had been inclined to consider them forms of H. gelatinosa and may perhaps have written you to that effect. However I am now satisfied of their distinct character.


There was but little of H. chromosperma, but I have specimens of it of my own finding.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (82) [J 181 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Dec. 8th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


It is best to change the name Helminthosporium uncinatum Clinton to Clasterisporium uncinatum Clinton.


Also change Cladosporium Callae P. & C. to Virgasporium Callae P. & C.    Clasterisporium is a genus of Schweinitz which I should place next to Sporidesmium.


Virgasporium is Booke's genus which comes next to Cladosporium.


What is the matter with the cones of your Pinus mitis that they afford no prickles on the scales. Are the prickles deciduous or is there some confusion between mitis and resinosa. I am puzzled by them.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note. Albany postmark Dec. 8]


Vol. 11 (83) [J 180]


Albany, Dec. 11th, 1875


My Dear Sir,


20 Apr. 18 Has exactly the spores of Hypocrea chromosperma C. & P., so that I fear to separate it at present, though it differs so much in color.

21 Apr. 18 is small Hypocrea patella C. & P.


I send a specimen of what I take to be H. gelatinosa, though I do not see anything gelatinous about it. Still it agrees with the description of that species as given in the Handbook.


I send also a specimen of what Cooke determined for me as H. gelatinosa and which I thus reported, but do not now believe it is anything but H. rufa. It agrees with the Handbook description of H. rufa fully.


The specimens of P. mitis you sent had a cone but it lacks the prickle that ought to adorn the conescales according to the books. It is clearly the same pine that I find in Sandlake and on the Catskills and Helderbergs, and certainly am if P. resinosa has the cones terminal and the bark smoothish. The objection to referring ii to P. mitis is the lack of prickles on the cones and the long leaves, which often surpass 5 inches, the largest limit given to P. mitis leaves.


Michaux's figure of P. rubra, (which equals P. resinosa) accords with our specimens better than does his figure of P. mitis. In both he makes the cone lateral, so that I am disposed to question the reliability of the terminal character ascribed to P. resinosa cones. In your specimen and in mine the cones are lateral. I never saw a terminal pine cone so far as I remember. It will probably be best to say nothing about this pine till we have investigated it more fully another year.


I am satisfied that the pine in Essex County, referred to P. inops, because of the prickles on the conve scales, is P. Banksiana. The books say this pine has the cone scales pointless; but you see I am so skeptical as to distrust the books. There are certainly weak prickles on some of the scales in our specimens, but they are nothing like so stiff and prominent as those of P. inops in the figures. Michaux's figure of P. Banksiana, agreeing with our species in everything except these weak prickles indicates the species to which this pine belongs. And yet after all, who knows but P. Banksiana may be only a northern form of P. inops and P. resinosa a northern form of P. mitis. They both seem to play the mischief with the descriptions. But so far as Michaux's figures are concerned I can not help feeling that our specimens should go with what he considered P. Banksiana (P. rupestris) and P. resinosa (P. rubra).


[Received - no note]