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. 11 (88) [J 176]


Albany, Jan. 20th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of Jan. 16 I consider

No. 1 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

2 This I have usually referred to Melanconium magnum Berk. as a variety with smaller spores than usual, but I shall be better satisfied to consider it a distinct species, so let us call it Melanconium intermedium P. & C. It comes just about midway between M. oblongum and M. magnum; the spores in the first being about .0008' long, those of the second averaging .0012' or .0015', while in this they are about .001 long.

9 Corticium incarnatum Fr.

10 Melogramma quercuum Fr. probably. It is without fruit.


I fail to make out the other numbers.


Of the stems of Syringa I find only one piece that bears the Sphaeropsis Syringae. Half of this I return.


There is something else on one other stem which I wish to study further. It may be something new.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (90) [J 172]


Albany, Feb. 1st, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I inclose a specimen of what I take to be the Merulius bellus B. & C. I depend on Berkeley's description for the identification and in this case as in too many others the description is not such as to make one feel absolutely certain, and yet the probablilities are so strong that I consider the reference tolerably safe.


Sphaeria aculeata Schw. belongs to C. a Immersae * * Endocaulae near S. spiculosa and S. inquilina.               *


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received -[ no note; the constellation of asterisks is a mystery to me, also "a Immersae"]


Vol. 11 (92) [J 170]


Albany, Feb. 10th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I have reduced the number of your doubtful species somewhat, but am obliged to leave quite a number just where they were before. Some were badly mixed, some were sterile and so must remain doubtful till they turn up in better condition. In several instances I have been obliged to give a name to the species, considering them new. I have taken a part of the specimens in some instances where we needed them. I return the whole bundle by Express to day.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (93) [J 169 - a U.S. postcard]


[Clinton's handwriting and crossed out]


  20 Ap. 18 is Hypocrea

  21 Ap. 18 is Hypocrea

Albany, Feb. 11th, 1876

x1 Imperfect - too young

x2 Puccinia Graminis Pers.

x3 Ascobolus ciliatus Schm.

x4 In poor condition & doubtful.

x5 This is undoubtedly the Ascobolus conglomeratus Schw. and probably only a form of Hysterium rufescens Schw. which Cooke refers to Angelina rufescens Duby.

x6 Penicillium crustaceum Fr.

x7 Oidium fasciculatum Berk.

8 Imperfect.

9 Spilocaea Pomi Fr. which Cooke regards as very near to if not a form of Cladosporium dendriticum. Wallr.


These are of Feb. 8,


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note. Written by Clinton, addressed to himself. Albany postmark Feb. 11]


Vol. 11 (99) [J 163]


Albany, Mar. 16th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of March 14, No. 1 is undoubtedly Aethalium vaporarium of the Handbook, but whether this really ought to be separated from Ae. septicum I am not sure. Because it grows in stoves [stores?] and is always yellow scarcely seems a sufficient reason for separating it from the other which grows in the open air and is only sometimes yellow. If I should disitinguish a species on such characters I should expect some one to deny its validity very soon.

2 & 3 Oidium fructigenum Schrad.

4 is uncertain

"A" March 15. I find no fungus here.

9 Feb. 13. This will probably turn out to be Peziza (Dasyscyphae) maculincola Schw. though it does not fully agree with Schweinitz's description. Cooke places this as a synonym of Peziza flammea A. & S. but P. flammea is figured as wholly red, while this is black at the base and red above according to the descriptions of P. maculincola. P. cinnabarina Schw. is also very near this species and the brief description scarcely affords any satisfactory ground for separation; so you see how difficult it is to say what name your specimens should bear. A very slight variation in the characters would adapt it to one of those published species with neither of which it rigidly agrees now.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received March 17


Vol. 11 (100) [J 162]


Albany, Mar. 23d, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I have not any doubt that Dothidea perisporioides B. & C. in Grevillea is the same as the one we referred to Sphaeria perisporrioides B. & C., though I have in some unaccountable way mislaid the fertile specimen you sent me, and so am not able to say with absolute certainty that the fruit agrees. Could you send me another bit of the fertile plant. It seems to me that the generic character "Perithecia none", as given in the Handbook, ought to be somewhat modified before a plant with such distinct and manifest perithecia is admitted into the genus. I notice quite a number of generic changes are made by Berkeley, and that he and Cooke do not always agree in their estimation of genera, thus Berkeley writes Helotium aeruginosum and Cenangium Cerasi, while Cooke writes Chlorosplenium aeruginosum and Dermatea Cerasi. Berkeley changes Sphaeria Spragnei to Melogramma spraguei and erroneously says that its perithecia are entirely concealed. He seems to unite Diatrype Cercidicola B. & C. and Diatrype discreta Schw. under the name Hypoxylon discretum Schw. Diatrype obesa B. & C. (Diatrype brunnea C. & P. Mss.) he refers to Diatrype quadrata Schw.


Diatrype virescens he reduces to a variety of D. disciformis and Dothidea crystallophora B. & C. he includes under Dothidea Ribesia; and I doubt very much if Sphaeria Russelii B. & C. is anything but Sphaeria Collinsii Schw. I am glad his "Notices" are approaching the end, for I have been greatly disappointed in them.


I have from Cooke a specimen of the Puccinia on leaves of Polygonum amphibium and also one on leaf of Polygonum Convolvulus. Both are referred to Puccinia Polygonorum. The spores differ slightly, but the external appearance considerably so that I should not be averse to separating into two species. In P. amphilii the sori are more confluent and compact and have a more dull black aspect. I have not seen American specimens on P. Convolvulus, so I am not sure that we have more than the one species. The one on P. Virginiana seems to me the same as that on P. amphibium.


I will return the box with such of the specimens as I can name in a day or two.


I find a specimen from you ("3 Nov. 1") which I had erroneously referred to Craterellus caespitosus Pk. It should be Helotium versiforme Fr. You will also see by Grevillea No. 30 p. 69 that Virgasporium does not stand and therefore that V. Callae P. & C. must again be changed, this time to Cercospora Callae P. & C.


[In pencil by Clinton: The Universe is thought of G. How can we measure it ...?]


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received  - no note]


Vol. 11 (102) [J 161 - a U.S. postcard which is in a different style that

the previous penny postcards]


Albany, Mar. 28th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I believe that what Cooke named for me Hysterium  tumidum and what I, putting too much faith in his determination, have so named for you is nothing but Phacidium dentatum Fr.


Mar. 26

1 & 2 Not good.

3 Ascophora Mucedo Tode.

4 Penicillium crustaceum Fr.

5 Cladosporium Herbarum Lk.


I sent a scrap of 9 Feb. 13 to a friend in Philadelphia to compare with the specimen of Peziza maculincola Schw. in the Herbarium of Schweinitz. He reports that they agree, and that P. flammea A. & S. is different. So that I am not disposed to follow Cooke in uniting these two species; neither do I think him right in uniting Peziza Solenia Pk. with P. Eupatoria Schw. which I have also had compared.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (108) [J 155]


Albany, May 23d, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I sent for southern specimens of Pinus mitis and Pinus inops. On comparison with these I became fully satisfied that the Portage pine, as well as those I had previously collected on the catskills and at Sandlake, was Pinus resinosa; also that Dr. Steven's pine from Essex County, formerly referred to P. inops, is Pinus Banksiana. Therefore our N.Y. pines at present stand thus P. rigida, P. resinosa, P. Banksiana and P. Strobus.


I wish the real P. mitis and P. inops might yet be found within our southern borders.


No. 1 I suspect a Sphaeropsis but am not fully satisfied.

2 This is the same Peziza Fowler sent years ago, which seemed to me new and worthy the name P. Fowleri, but I have been waiting for good specimens to turn up before describing.

3 A Peziza, but it came badly broken to pieces and is uncertain

4 Sterile

5 Podisoma fuscum Duby.


I attribute the scarcity of fungi to the prevailing low temperature. It is wet enough but too cold.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (109) [J 154]


Albany, June 1st, 1876


My Dear Sir,


I can get no good of the sendings of May 29th.


Of May 30

1 Peziza repanda Wahl.

x2 Urocystis pompholygodes Schl.

3 Puccinia Hydrophylli P. & C. n. sp. Can you send more of this. It is a rough-spored species like P. Menthae, P. Anemones, etc.

4 The Uredo-form of what I have in my Manuscript under the name Puccinia orbicula Pk. I find it also on Solidago leaves.

5 Peziza Warnei Pk. Mss.

6 Indeterminable

7 Septoria viridetingens Curtis


I return No. 5


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (110) [J 152 - one of the new U.S. postcards - on softer stock as it seems to bleed]



[In Clinton's handwriting] Peziza repanda, Wahl. = Aleuria

Peziza Warnei, Peck = [no apparent reply]


[In Peck's handwriting:] Of June 3d.

1 Cystopus candidus Lev.

2 & 3 Aecidium Grossulariae DC.

7 Polyporus obducens Pers.

8 Glonium stellatum Muhl.

9 Aedicium Violae Schum.

10 Exidia granulata Fr.

12 & 13 Mitrula paludosa Fr.

16 Sphaerella Sarraceniae Schw.


The others are not good or in an immature condition.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Peck's handwriting: Thanks for the specimens of Puccinia Hydrophylli Received -[ no note. Albany Post June 6. Prepared by Clinton and self-addressed.]


Vol. 11 (111) [J 153 - another new U.S. postcard]




[Clinton's handwriting] Peziza Warnei, Peck, belongs to Aleuhria

[Peck's reply:] Put it near P. acetabulum in Sec. 1.

A. June 8 is without fruit and indeterminable


Of June 6th

6 is a Peziza apparently P. aurantia.

7 Uredo Pyrolae Strauss fide Dr. Curtis. Cooke thinks it is Trichobasis

Pyrolae Berk. if I remember rightly, but I see no Trichobasis.

8 Leptostroma linears Pk. Mss.

11 Septoria Scrophulariae Pk. Apparently

12 Uredo form of Puccinia Saniculae.


Others not good.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received -[ no note. Self-addressed by Clinton. Albany postmark

June 10]


Vol. 11 (113) [J 149 - new U.S. postcard]


[Albany postmark June 16, 1876]


Of June 10

3 Dothidea Osmundae P. & C. n. sp.

4 Aecidium Ranunculacearum

7 Leptostroma vulgare Fr.

8 Ascobolus ciliatus Schw. Probably, but the specimens are very poor.

9 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr. Black dots probably lichenose, but sterile

11 Aecidium crassum Pers. Others not good.


The specimens of Aecidium album are received. I was desirous of knowing if the spores were white in the fresh state as they sometimes fade when old.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (115) [J 148]


Albany, June 29th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Thanks for the copy of your Address. You seem to be equally ready upon all subjects and all seasons.


Of June 19 I consider

x1 Helminthosporium puccinioides P. & C. n. sp. and would like more.

x2 Oidium monilioides Lk.

x3 Uredo pustulata Pers.

x4 Sphaerella Impatientis P. & C. n. sp.

x5 Peziza assimilis C. & P.

x6 Peziza cyathoidea (small form)

x7 The so called Polyporus Boucheanus Fr. I have tried to get some European specimens of P. Boucheanus from several sources but thus far in vain. I suspect our plant is distinct.

8  Puccinia spreta Pk.


Of June 27th

x1 Stilbum erythrocephalum Ditm. New to us and more is desirable.

x2 Nothing good.

x5 This is usualy referred to Melanconium bicolor but recentlly in reviewing the species I became convinced that this is distinct and put it in my Manuscript under the name Melanconium Ostryae Pk. The other numbers are not in good condition. I hope soon to be off to the woods again collecting, so that if there should be much delay in my replies you will know I am absent.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (128) [J 133 - a new U.S. postcard]


Albany, Sept. 11th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of Sept 9th

No. 1 was named, figured and described two or three years ago by Rev. J. L. Zabriskie of New Baltimore, who published it on slips after the manner of Dr. Howe. His specimens occurred on Quince leaves & he called the fungus Blastesis tridens Zab.


Of the Japan mosses I recognize only No. 2 which I take to be Hypnum molluscum. Being without fruit it is hardly worth while for me to try to determine them.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (130) [J 131]


Albany, Oct. 2nd, 1876


My Dear Sir,


The box containing specimens of Sept. 23d came while I was absent and in consequence some of the contents had become much decayed when I saw them

1 Too much decayed.

x2 Xylaria grandis Pk.

x3 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr.

4 Decayed

x5 Decayed but probably Agaricus (Armillaria) melleus Vahl.

6 Decayed

x7 Exidia recisa Fr.

x8 Imperfect.

x9 No fruit, but probably Dothidea Potentillae Fr.

x10 Near Ag. metachrous but uncertain.

x11 Uncertain

x12 Spumaria albus DC.

x13 Microsphaera Viburni (Schw.)


x15 Agaricus (Mycena) subincarnatus Pk.

16 Too young

17 Trichia turbinata With.

x18 Trichia chrysosperma DC.

x19 Trichia cerina Ditm.

x20 Peziza adusta C. & P.

x21 Apparently the same. Cooke's figure of this in Mycographia is a very poor representation of the fresh plant.

x22 Peziza stercorea Pers.

x23 The peridia are badly broken off but I have no doubt it is Roestelia cornuta Tul.


Berkeley is trying to make out that what I have described as Roesteliai Ellisii is Roestelia botryapites Schw., though my specimens do not agree with Schweinitz description, and my Philadelphia friend who has compared them with Schweinitz's Herbarium specimens says they are quite different externally. Of course he can not compare them microscopically as the custodians of the Herbarium do not allow it.

24 Merulius tremellosus Fr.

25 Aecidium Euphorbiae Pers.


I find no No. 14 and two marked 3. The one which I return is Fistulina hepatica Fr.


I fail to make anything of Sept. 11.


   Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (131) [J 130]


Albany, Oct. 12th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


The summer was so dry that I could not make much headway collecting, but since the fall rains I have been very busy trying to make up for past deficiencies, hence my delay in reporting on your boxes. I have taken this forenoon to examine the one of Oct. 7 with the following result.


x1 Polyporus sulfureus Fr. as you suppose

x2 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr. (large)

3 Agaricus (Pholiota) adiposus Fr.

4 Agaricus (Pleurotus) serotinoides Pk.

5 Agaricus (Crepidotus) fulvotomentosus Pk.

6 Hygrophorus miniatus Fr.

7 Omitted

8 Helotium aciculare Fr.

x9 Ascobolus conglomeratus Schw. Cooke I believe refers this to Angelina rufescens Duby.

10 & 11 Uncertain

x12 Agaricus (Tricholoma) multipunctus Pk.

13 & 14 Uncertain

["ask for"] 15 Agaricus (Clitocybe) carnosior Pk.

x16 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr.

17 Decayed

18 Tremella albida Huds.

x19 Marasmius campanulatus Pk.

20 21 22 x23 Uncertain

24 Tremella sarcoides Fr. said to be a form of Bulgaria sarcoides Fr.

x25, x26, x27, x28, x29 & x30 Uncertain

x31 Odontia fimbriata Fr.

x32 Puccinia graminis Pers.

x33 - x40 Nothing good or uncertain.

x41 Pollyporus attenuatus Pk.

x42-45 Uncertain

x46 Nectria cnnabarina

x47 Cytispora

x48 Oidium aureum Lk.

x49 Uncertain

[Front page left margin:] Two other boxes remain which I will examine as soon as I get opportunity.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (132) [J 129 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Oct. 12th, 1876


Another box received Oct 9th

x1 Agaricus (Lepiota) procerus Scop.

x2 Agaricus (Clitocybe) Poculum Pk.

x3 Peziza (Humeria) omphalodes Bull.

x4 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr.

x5 & x6 Marasmius longipes Pk.

x7 Melogramma Bulliardi Tul.

x8 Imperfect.

x9 Polyporus nitidus Fr.

x10 & 11 Uncertain

12 This is a fine thing probably new but I am uncertain whether it (the peridium) is circumscissle as in Perichaena or whether it is a better Arcyria. The specimens are meagre. Can you send more and say what bark it is on.


If you could spare more also of No. 9 I would like it.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (133) [J 128]


Albany, Oct. 19th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of Oct. 9th I conclude that 12 is Perichaena irregularis B. & C. Berkeley's description is less than two lines long and he gives no measurements of spores, and says nothing of colors except of the flocci, which is very perplexing, but so far as he goes the case is met, so that you probably have the species he intended to describe.


No 13 is rather slim but I think is only Physarum nutans Pers.


Oct. 13

x1 Nectria Peziza Fr.

x2 Two or three things mixed and so little of each that I fear to jumble things if I attempt to do anything with them.

x3 Only speratia present.

x4 No spores.


I did not preserve the specimens of No. 15, Ag. carnosior as they were so far decomposed, but send you a specimen of my own collecting.


I also return part of 12 also 13.


The species of fungi do hold out well. Notwithstanding the bad season I hope to add a hundred or more species to the Herbarium this year of my own collecting. Their appearance is sometimes remarkable. In 1869 I found in North Elba, Essex Co. Boletus Clintonianus. Since then I do not remember having met with it. A few days ago I found a few specimens of it at Center, between here and Schenectady. Thus it is. Some things I have found but once in my life. Others I have detected a second time after the lapse of years and others wtill I see every season and in almost every locality.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (136) [J 124/125 - two sheets]


Albany, Oct. 30th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of Oct. 23d.

x2 Arcyria incarnata Pers.

x3 Bulgaria purpurea Fckl.

x5 Trichia varia Pers.?

x7 Helotium citrinum Fr.

x8 Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw.

x11 12, x13 Nectria Peziza Fr.

x14 This is too young. It would probably develop into Peziza aurelia.

x15 Aegerita candida Pers.

x17 Merulius lacrymans Fr.

x18 Solenia anomala Pers.

x20 Polyporus conchatus Fr.

x28 Polyporus salicis Fr.

x14 Polyporus vaporarius Fr.


The others are not good or uncertain species.


Sept. 23d

xNo. 26 Uromyces Euphorbiae C.& P.


Oct. 20

x1 Agaricus (Pleurotus) serotinoides Pk.

x6 Zygodesmus pannosus B. & C.


Others not good.


I report on some of your sendings; and hope to bring all up in time.


Have you specimens of Lycoperdon Wrightii & L. calvescens fro Mr. C. Wright of Connecticut who is credited by Berkeley with their discovery; and if so could you lend them to me for a brief inspection?


[second sheet]


Of Oct. 25th

x1 Agaricus (Hypholoma) perplexus Pk.

2 & 9 Immature.

3 Trichia rubiformis Pers.

x4 A Stilbum probably S. pellucidum Schrad.

x5 Uncertain.

x6 Hypomyces aurantius Tul.

x7 Penicillium crustaceum Fr.

x8 Polyporus species uncertain

x10 Uncertain

x11 & x12 Hydnum species uncertain. I find it impossible to identify our resupinate Hydna by Berkeley's descriptions. I do not see but all will have to be redescribed.

x13 Nectria pulicaris Fr. according to Cooke but the spores by no means agree with the description he gives in the Handbook.

x14 Dactylium roseum Berk. fide Cooke.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (137) [J 123]


Albany, Nov. 13th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


"Polyporus Salicis" must have been a slip of the pen for Polyporus salicinus Fr. which is one of the Placodermei Section Fomentarii.


Of Nov. 7


I fail to make out a large proportion.

x4 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr.

10 Trichia rubiformis Pers.

x13 Nectria Peziza Fr.

x14  Dacrymyces deliquescens Duby.

x25 & x26 appear to be a poor development of Polyporus biformis Fr.

x35 Agaricus (Pleurotus) applicatus Batsch.

x38 Stereum frustulosum Fr.

x42 Polyporus vulgaris Fr.

x43 Helotium versiforme Fr.

x46 Guepinia spathularia Fr.

x48 I have this in my Manuscripts as Dacrymyces minor, n. sp.

x49 Polyporus nitidus?

x50 Polyporus vaporarius apparently x51, x52 Agaricus (Pleurotus) sapidus Kalchbr.

x53 Polyporus (Placodermei) albellus Pk. n. sp.

x40 Is probably Corticium coeruleum Fr. though I see no whitish margin to it. It is new to us. Have you more to spare?


Nov. 17th


I thought this had been sent to you but it was mislaid and I have just discovered it.

[2.?] 31 Nov. 10 looks like Dr. Curtis' specimen of Corticium Martianum C. & C. but it differs so much from Berkeley's description of that species, that I dare not at present refer it to that. What in my last report I referred to Dermatea acericola Pk. is probably Dermatea carpinea Pers. The habitat seems to be Carpinus.


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (138) [J 122]


Albany, Nov. 21st, 1876


My Dear Sir,


"Uromyces Howei Pk." is the proper designation of the fungus enclosed in your note of the 17th inst. and of No. 5 Oct. 7.


The specimen of Patellaria leptos.. [leptostroma?] 21 Nov. 10 is very poor, barely sufficient for identification and the species seems to be a rare one. I return the specimen.


The omission on my part to send report on Nov. 7 has since been corrected. I trust the return has reached you ere this.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[no note of receipt]


Vol. 11 (139) [J 121]


Albany, Nov. 23d, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Of Nov. 20th the following are namable.

x1 Marasmius subvenosus Pk.

x3 Phoma stercoraria P. & C. n. sp. This is probably a nonascigerous state of some dung Sphaeria, but in its present condition it can only be referred to Phoma.

x4 Geaster saccatus Fr. (small)

x5 Agaricus (Pleurotus) striatulus Fr.

6 Physarum nutans Pers.

x8 & x10 These appear to be microscopically much like little detached tufts of Trichoderma vivide.

x17 Cantharellus aurantiacus Fr.

x19 Polyporus cinnabarinus Fr.

x21 Stereum hirsutum Fr.


The small ones are probably the same.

23 Polyporus vaporarius Fr.

x24 Diatrype Duriaei Mont.

x26 Hymenochaete rubiginosa Fr. (Stereum rubiginosum Fr.)

x28 Dacrymyces stillatus Fr.

33 Xylaria corniformis Fr.

x32 is probably a young state of it.

x15 Lycoperdon pyriforme Schaeff.

x7 & x20 are both species of Irpex but specifically doubtful.

14 Sphaeria Coryli Batsch.


The others are not good.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (141) [J 119]


Albany, Dec. 5th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Though I do not speak from absolute knowledge it is evident to my mind that "C", in the article referred to in your postal, stands for "Cooke". You will observe the same lack of uniformity in his use of his name and that of Mr. Ellis. It is sometimes given by hm as "C & Ellis", sometimes "C. & E.". Also in his explanation of  Plate 74 in Grevillea he adds the "C." to Trichobasis spinulosum, (he sometimes regards "Trichobasis" as feminine gender and sometimes as neuter) while in the text he writes it "Cooke", so that it is safe enough to regard the "C" in all cases (where he uses it) as meaning "Cooke". As to his controverting the species of others perhaps I ought not to say anything since I am an interested party, yet I will say that if his grounds for overthrowing the species of others are no better than they are for making synonymy of mine he will yet have many errors to answer for. Some of my species that he reduced to synonyms in his List in Buffalo Bulletin he has already admitted are good species and others I am confident will yet be treated in like manner. Indeed so apparently strained is the effort in the last number of Mycographia to deprive me of Geoglossum luteum which he had previously admitted that I am almost forced to believe that I did not misunderstand the implied threat he made against me some time ago. But no matter, I shall not quarrel with any one, but I shall maintain that those species are good which clearly appear so to me, those that do not I shall drop. I am well satisfied Cooke is wrong in regard to the following: Helvella gracilis Pk. - a good species and not a variety of H. elastica as he hints.


Leotia lutea (Pk.) Clearly distinct from L. circinans.


Geoglossum luteum Pk. no Mitrula at all and if the same as Mitrula lutescens Berk. that species is badly described.


Peziza solenia Pk. not P. Eupatorii


Rhytisma lineare Pk. clearly differs from Hypoderma nerviseguium


Peziza unicisa Pk. is certainly unlike P. onotica if that is well figured and described. And so to Roestelia Ellisii Pk. I have had it compared by Mr. Stevenson with the specimen of R. botryopites in Schweinitz Herbarium and he says it looks quite different and he regards the two as distinct. So do I. Not only this comparison but Schweinitz's description confirms me in this view.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


P. S. I am of the opinion that the enclosed is Corticium Martianum P. & C. but still it does not well agree with the description. It agrees tolerably with Ravenel's specimen and perhaps it is to be expected that Berkeley's descriptions being drawn up from dry specimens would be imperfect.




[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (145) [J 115 - a U.S. postcard]


[In Clinton's handwriting:] The squash rind has on it


Macrosporium sarcinula Berk.


I will gladly join with you in the work you propose after my present Report is completed, which will be at or before the Annual Meeting of the Regents. Some of the early names especially I have given you may need changing, so that it will gratify me to have the opportunity of a final review of the matter before publication.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note. One of Clinton's self addressed postcards.

Albany postmark Dec. 12]


[Perhaps this is a reference to the publication of the fungi of Buffalo.]


Vol. 11 (153) [J 106]


Albany, Feby. 1st, 1877


My Dear Sir,


You will remember the little black dusty dots on dead willow twigs which you have sent me several times and which Dr. Curtis used to refer to Coniothecium toruloideum B. & C. (but which Berkeley does not notice) and which Cooke referred to Torula stilbospora Cd. Not feeling fully satisfied with Cooke's determination I sent it to Thumen and have just received his reply, which is as follows;


"The fungus is the genuine Trimmatostroma Salicis Cda. The genus is near to Torula but sufficiently distinct. I find the spores a little smaller than in the European forms and also a little clearer, a sufficient reason to establish a variety for which I propose the name var. Americana." It would then stand Trimmatostroma Salicis Cd. var. Americana Thumen. I have not Corda's work or descriptions but think Thumen's determination more reliable.


I also learn through him that Puccinia Veratri was first published by Fuckel. If not too late please change it in the list to Puccinia Veratri Fckl. instead of DC. as I mistakenly wrote it. I regret that I am responsible for pronouncing this new when it really was not. Did the manuscript lists reach you safely.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]



Vol. 11 (156) [J 102/103 - two sheets]


Albany, Dec. 28th, 1876


My Dear Sir,


Your most kind wishes of Merry Christmas and Happy New Year are most heartily reciprocated.


The question of validity of name published in a Report is not a new one but has been raised previously from time to time by one and another. You will remember some time ago Cooke wrote me that such a publication did not secure priority, and yet people do go on and publish in Reports and so far as I am aware few if any have been hardy enough knowingly to disregard such publication.


I suspect that the article in question was prompted by Cooke and was intended to include or cover the case of our Cabinet Reports, for I have recently claimed priority of name in two or three instances in private correspondence. For instance Cooke and Ellis have recently published a Phaeropsis quercina. I wrote to Mr. Ellis that I had previously employed that name in one of my Reports. I also wrote to Thumen recently that I believed Uncinula Ampelopsidis Pk. was the same as Uncinula subfusca B. & C. in Grevillea 32 p. 160, and claimed priority for my name. These cases have probably been brought to the notice of Cooke and Berkeley and suggested the article.


As to Manuscript names in private Herbaria I never thought and never held that they had any right to respect beyond that of courtesy.


The other part of the article is so mixed and indefinite that I am not sure I understand just kow far "this plain doctrine" is intended to go. "A privately or exclusively printed report which is not sold or published" probably means a Report printed by a private individual at private expense for the exclusive use of himself and immediate friends. Here the doctrine I think is sound, but I fail to see how this applies to our Reports. "The species must be published + + in some work accessible to the public". This upon its face appears all well enough, but the word "published" being italicised may have some special meaning. Ordinarily I do not see why publication  in a Report is different from publication in a Journal or Magazine, especially when the Reports are periodical. Are the Reports accessible to the public? If this can be answered in the affirmative then I think on their own ground their "bull" fails to reach them. Certainly Reports of Scientific Institutions, Geological Surveys and Governmental Explorations so abound in matter of scientific character that they ought to be classed among the "ordinary channels of scientific literature".


I belive our Reports are not for sale except occasionally as second hand books. If a few copies could be placed on sale say with the Naturalists Agency or some prominent firm of Book dealers it seems to me all question as to accessibility would be removed. Strictly speaking if a copy were placed in a few of the principal public Libraries they would be accessible to the public, but the other method seems preferable. This, according to the claims of the article in question, is the only vulnerable point in the publication of our Reports. If a man


[second sheet]


can obtain a Report by applying for it what essential difference ought it to make whether he obtains it as a gift or by purchase? Yet some men will quibble and hold that a work is not accessible unless they can purchase it. The edition for sale may be small, but the first applicants would be supplied and this would stop all complaint. In the case of the 27th Report only the Documentary Edition was printed and I had no copies for distribution. In such a case there seems some good ground for complaint about imperfect publication. Prof. Hall is absent and will not be back until Saturday. I will then call his attention to the article, but I am well aware the subject is not a new one to him. I do not believe the species I have published in the Reports are going to be ignored or the names disregarded, but it would be well to guard as far as possible against such causes of complaint whether they be well grounded or not. I should have long ago and repeatedly accepted your invitatio to publish characters of the new species in the Buffalo Bulletin for this very reason, but I knew Prof. Hall was anxious that our annual Reports should contain as much new and original matter as possible and has long cherished the idea of even issuing a Bulletin of new species to obviate the delay in the publicaiton of the Reports. These things will perhaps receive some attention when you come to Albany to the Annual Meeting of the Regents.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[top left C. H. Peck, Dec. 28, 1876]

Received - no note]