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 (157) [J 101]


Albany, Jan'y 20th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


I have revised the list of Buffalo fungi and made some changes and some corrections of my own errors. I have written in pencil in your book little notes designed to be explanatory of the changes and in case of reference to a different genus to aid you in finding where I have placed the species. A little rubber will erase these if you like.


When the conidia or pycnidia etc. alone have occurred I have placed the name applied to the perfect form in the list and given a marginal note in pencil, stating the form. This can be erased if you think best. Also the statement concerning a few species identified by Dr. Curtis' specimens, which Berkeley has not seen fit to characterise or describe. I have omitted doubtful species and spurious genera which are mostly only imperfect states of various species of fungi.  This will reduce the number of so-called species some but I think will be more true to nature and more satisfactory. I do not know just what style you had adopted or intended to adopt for your list but hope I have guessed it near enough so that you will not be under the necessity of writing it all over again for it is quite a work to transcribe nearly a thousand names. I will send the book and manuscript by Express.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 


Received - no note]


[The reference is doubtless to the later list of the fungi of Buffalo which Peck issued under his own name after Clinton left Buffalo. The book Peck wrote in is one of several books in the archives of the Research Library of the Buffalo Museum of Science, one devoted to the fungi. It is good to know that the annotations in it are Peck’s.]


Vol. 11 (165) [J 90 - on new stationary printed "New York State Museum of Natural History"]


Albany, Feb'y 28th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


The box arrived safely.

No. 1 has some points which suggest Ag. laccatus, but still I doubt if it is that species. The spores are not developed enough to give their voice, so I must leave it in doubt.

2 Peziza repanda Wahl.

3 Diachaea elegans Fr.

4 Melanconium Americanum P. & C. n. sp.

"Aecidum on Trifolium" Aecidium Orobi DC.


I hope the cause or causes of your sad feelings whatever they may be will speedily be removed and gladness and joy return to you again. I have a big box of specimens from Warne in which I expect to find some new things.


Did you ever get a copy of the 27th Report. If not I can now furnish you one of the Botanical Part.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


[Note that other letters to other of Clinton’s correspondents also refer to a letter of Clinton’s where he expresses a despondency. This malaise seems to have been with him since his college days.]



Vol. 11 (168) [J 87 - back to the old notebook paper]


Albany, Mar. 23d, 1877


My Dear Sir,


I can not fully satisfy myself concerning the nature of the supposed fungus on Taxodium. It is unlike any fungus I have seen and though it appears somewhat as if it might be a fungus-gall something like those on Azalea etc. still it does not show fruit clearly so that I doubt. I do not find insect larvae in them and therefore can not say that they are insect galls. I must leave them in doubt.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received - no note]


Vol. 11 (173) [J 82]


Albany, Mar. 26th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


I send as good specimens as I have of the Arceuthobium, but it is a hard thing to preserve well, breaking up at the joints very easily when dry. Of the male plants I have no good ones. I add also Juncus maritimus, J.  stygius, and Utricularia resupinata - rather rare plants which occur to me. I supose "pusillum" is the proper name. I do not know that the plant has been described under any other. Possibly your friend may hold, like some people over the water, that a description pubished in a report amounts to nothing.


Alas! for the Lemnas. If Mr. Austin who has made a special study of these plants can not name these species, how can I hope to. I have no special works on them and they do not seem to agree with any specimens I have access to, so that I am obliged to plead ignorance of them.


I shall be glad to know what Prof. Farlow makes out of the Taxodium affair.


I can send Prof. Porter copies of the Botanical Part of the 25, 26, 27 & 28 Reports. These are all I have in duplicate. Perhaps he would prefer the whole report. If he only cares for the Botany I will send him these.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck




Vol. 11 (180) [J 75]


Albany, Apr. 13th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


No. 1 of Apr. 12 "on a cucumber" I think is Polyactis cana Berk., though a little darker than the specimens formerly sent on Cabbage leaves.

2 Diachaea elegans Fr.

"On Polyporus sulfureus" I take to be Sphaeria cladosporiosa Schw. but Berkeley says it is not a good Sphaeria, nor do I find any fruit of Sphaeria in your specimens. It seems to be really a Cladosporium imitating in form the perithecia of a Sphaeria.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received, no note]


Vol. 11 (217) [J 31]


Albany, Sept. 7th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


On my return from the North Woods I found the package containing the Aspidium and Triticum waiting for me. I am thankful for the specimens. The Triticum certainly is peculiar not only by the narrow involute leaves but also by the hairy sheaths. It seems hard to think it a variety of T. caninum and yet I supose this is a very variable species. Mr. Thurber recently wrote me that he had not yet seen what he could consider genuine T. caninum, so wonderfully did it vary when growing on our rocky hills and precipices.


This form is new to me and to the Herbarium


The fungus from Long Island is Didymium cinereum (Batsch.) Fr. I found it plentiful about Ticonderoga. The fungus on Box leaves is without fruit but has the appearance of Sphaeropsis Candollei - a form of Sphaerella Buxi according to the Handbook. Dr. Curtis specimens contain this labelled "Diplodia Buxi Fr. which is probably the source of the name. Even his specimens so named have merely simple spores of Sphaeropsis.


I had very satisfactory success with the fungi in the North Woods. Expect to be off on another trip soon.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


Vol. 11 (221) [J 26]


Albany, Oct. 5th, 1877


My Dear Sir,


I inclose a specimen of the Rhytisma maximum which you desired to see. Unfortunately it is not in fruit, (its fruiting season being spring or early summer) but I have no doubt of its identity.


I also add a specimen of Peziza Solenia Pk. which I expect even Cooke himself will yet acknowledge to be quite distinct from P. Eupatorii Schw. with which he now persists in uniting it. It never attains (in the hundreds of specimens that I have seen) any larger size than these you see, while Schweinitz says of his species, "cupulis bi-vel tri-linearibus,". It never expands or flattens out, yet Schweinitz says of his, "madefactis explanatis, disco subconvexo," etc.


If I have no species more difficult than this to defend, I shall not expect much trouble in maintaining my species.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[No date of receipt]


Vol. 11 (227) [J 20, return to use of printed stationary "New York State

Museum of Natural History"]


Albany, Feb. 16th,  1878

My Dear Sir,


I do not know Hendersonia maculans Lev. The specimens I referred to H. theaecola Ck. seemed to me to agree with his description of that species, but now he appears to think his H. theaecola is equal to Pestalozzia Guepini (see p. 27 of his Precursor).


I see he has made a new genus and placed Pestalozzia Mariae in it, because, I suppose, he thinks he has detected a perithecium in it. But with all my care I confess I could not see any. I do not think much of these infinitesimal generic distinctions that require a pretty hard stretch of the imagination to see them.


Pestalozzia Peckii, according to Thumen, is Pestalozzia monochaeta



Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck             


[Received, no note]



Vol. 12 (10) [K 119 - on stationary]


Albany, Apr. 30th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Of April 29th the sendings are xNo. 1 Orthotrichum anomalum Hedw.x2 Sterile

x3 Cladosporium lignicolum Cd.

x4 Uncertain

x5 Sporidesmium Lepraria B. variety

x6 Sporidesmium moriforme Pk.

x7 Not good.

x8 Morchella esculenta Pers.

x9 Morchella esculenta var. rotunda

x10 Morchella esculenta

x11 Morchella semilibera DC.

-12 Verpa digitaliformis Pers. This has a peculiar reticulation on the pileus. Not an abortive state of 11.

-13 Peziza cochleata Bull.

-14 Gyromitra esculenta Fr. = Helvella esculenta Pers. This differs a little from the ordinary form, but is probably a mere variety. It is scarcely safe at any rate to separate so closely related forms on the strength of a single specimen, so I prefer to regard it for the present as a mere form of the above mentioned species.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 

[Received, no note.]


Vol. 12 (13) [K 116 - on stationary, with new black ink, too, like Clinton

has been using:]


New York Stte Museum of Natural History,


Albany, May 6th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Since the receipt of your specimens of Apr. 29th I have found here three specimens specifically like your No. 13 and from further examination and reflection I conclude that it and they are not a variant form of Gyromitra esculenta, but the Gyromitra curtipes Fries. The two differ but little in external appearance, but the latter has a shorter and more irregular stem, a paler color when fresh, and the spores more fusiform in outline with one to three nuclei this, [drawing]; G. esculenta spores are thus [drawing]. I send a specimen of this of my own collecting (13a) I return those you desired.

11 Morchella semilibera DC.

12 Verpa digitaliformis Pers.

14 Gyromitra curtipes Fries.


I owe you a most humble apology for my neglect in the matter of some Mosses from the Russell Collection. They came last winter (with some African Fungi) while I was sick and they were laid aside till I could attend to them, and wholly forgotten, until they turned up a couple days ago. I will examine them as you desired and return them in a day or two. I greatly regret this forgetful neglect.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


Vol. 12 (30) [K 101, stationary]


Albany, June 24th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Your kind inquiry concerning my health doings &c. of the 15th inst. came during my absence. I have just returned and at once reply. I am well as usual and trying to behave myself properly. I have just been on a collecting trip in the northern part of Schoharie County and Southern part of Montgomery County. I found the swamps full of water and fleshy fungi scarce, probably because it was hardly warm enough - for certainly it was wet enough. However, I got some new things. I found the fruit of Prunus Americana affected by a fungus (Exoascus Pruni Fckl.) in some cases nearly all the fruit on a tree being spoiled by it. The farmers in the towns of Carlisle and Root are complaining bitterly of a weed which they called "Arnica". It is Hieracium aurantiacum L. a new comer which has already become abundant in those towns and bids fair to rival if not surpass the white daisy as a pest. They say it runs the grass out of their pastures and meadows. It evidently grows and spreads rapidly. I saw one plowed field quite red with it and was told by the stage driver that that field had been plowed this spring. I found some meadows with large red patches of this plant in them. It is beautiful but its rapid spread is alarming.


I found Potamogeton lonchitis and P. compresses at Sprokers [?], both just in flower though. I am anxious to have the Potamogetons well represented in the Herbarium and intend to look after them carefully this season. I hope to be off again in a couple weeks.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


Vol. 12 (37) [K 95 - a U.S. postcard]

Albany, July 10th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


The box of July 8th has just reached me.


No. 1 is a fine discovery I take it to be Clathrus cancellatus L. The specimen has become much shrivelled and coated with dirt, but it can scarcely be anything else. Did you make a note of its appearance when fresh? Did it have a stem or not?

2 Is young Thelephora, either pallida or Cladonia Schw.

3 & 4 are Chondrioderma spumarioides (Fr.) in Rostafinski = Diderma spumarioides Fr. in Handbook.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


P. S. I leave tomorrow for Ulster County.


[Received, no note. Albany postmark July 10]


Vol. 12 (62) [K 66]


Albany, Oct. 1st, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Of Sept. 30th

xNo. 1 is a fungus - Puccinia Gentianae Strauss.

2 Polyporus rhodellus Fr.

/x3 Hydnum fuscoatrum Fr.

\x4 Hydnum fuscoatrum younger.

x5 Cytispora leucosperma Fr. None of these can be the cause of "the yellows". They do not occur on living tissues. And if a fungus produces the trouble I feel very confident if I were in an affected district where I could watch the operation of the disease I could detect it. As it is I must do as well as I can with the material sent me. That the Oidium produces decay in the peach I have already demonstrated. A sound peach inoculated with it immediately begins to decay and in two or three days is all rotten. But whether the Oidium vegetates in the tissues of the tree is the question to be solved. I find the threads easily enough permeatingan affected peach, but to find them in the twigs and leaves is not so easy. I am now macerating some to see what I can get. If any of your peach growing friends are willing to sacrifice or run the risk of sacrificing a tree or two for

the sake of knowledge I wish they might inoculate one or two young & sound trees with the Oidium just to see if it will produce the yellows in them.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


Vol. 12 (66) [K 62]


Albany, Oct. 8th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Of Oct. 5th

x1 Physarum cinereum Batsch.

x2 Physarum contextum Pers.(variety)

x3 Patellaria fusispora C. & P.

x5 Clavaria mucida Pers.

x7 Uncinula circinata C. & P.

x10 & x11 Hypoxylon serpens Fr.

x12 Polyporus induratus Peck in ed. 31st Report. This was formerly sent me by H. A. Warne from Oneida, the only other locality known to me, for it.

x13 & x14 Polypporus vaporarius Fr. (variety)

x15 Tubulina cylindrica Bull.

x20 Agaricus (Omphalia) campanella Batsch.

21 & 22 Agaricus (Armillaria) melleus Vahl.

24 Dr. Curtis used to refer this to Polyporus Sullivantii Mont. It is a very variable species and I believe is Polyporus pubescens Schum.

x25 Hemiarcyria rubiformis Pers.

x26 Trichia scabra Rost.

x27 Probably = 26 but is too young.

x28 Trichia varia Pers.

x31 Polyporus versicolor Fr.

x32 Lenzites vialis Pk.

x33 Agaricus (Collybia) radicatus Rehl.

x4,x6,x8,x9,x16,x17,x18,x19,x23,&x34 I do not make out. The other numbers seem to have been omitted.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note]


Vol. 12 (67) [K 61]


Albany, Oct. 12th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


There is no fruit in "A" inclosed in yours of the 10th inst. therefore I can not say what it is. I have no duplicate of H. truncatulum the only specimen being mounted in the Herbarium and that a small one. I doubt very much if it ought to be kept separate from H. pulicare, from which (in its ordinary form) it merely differs in its more elevated and flat topped perithecia and longer spores. Cooke cuts close when he makes species but if I make one and he wishes to criticize it then he is an awful lumper.


I send a specimen of Sphaeria rubefaciens. It comes in B. erumpentes subsection Ceratostomae.


Tubulina cylindrica Bull. is the equivalent according to Rostafinski, of both Licea cylindrica and L. fragiformis of the Handbook. Under the old arrangement it would take the place of these species. In Rostafinski's arrangement it comes just before Reticularia Cribraria Trichia etc. Polyporus rhodellus and P. induratus are among the Resupinati, P. pubescens is the last species (in Epicrisis) of the Anodermei.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note.]


Vol. 12 (68) [K 60 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Oct. 19th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


I am glad to see the vars. of Aster Novae-angliae & A. ericoides and especially Gentiana puberula, and am very thankful for them.


Of Oct. 12

1 is probably Septoria continua B. & C. but as there are no spores I am obliged to leave it in doubt.

2 This is a Cronartium which for the present I call Cronartium Comandrae Pk. Mss. I found it last year but without spores and so did not report it. Nor do I find fruit in yours. I wish the fellow would fruit.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note. Albany postmark Oct. 14]


Vol. 12 (69) [K 59]


[U. S. postal card, one cent postage. Clinton, Buffalo, General



Where shall I place Cronartium? [=Clinton's handwriting]

Place it with Aecidium Roestelia etc.



   Of Oct. 16

1 Sphaeria doliolum Fr.

4 On the small piece is a minute black Peziza which I call Peziza (Mollisia) sphaerella P. & C. The other piece has some wretched Vermicularia on.

23 & 5 are not good.


                            Very truly Yours


                              Chas. H. Peck


More of the Peziza would be desirable.


[No date of receipt. postmark Oct. 17 at 9 AM from Albany]


Vol. 12 (76) [K 52]


Albany, Nov. 7th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


Puccinia caricina DC. is correct. P. caricis is the same. Sacidium Pini

I would place next to Phoma.


Schweinitz described a Puccinia Lespedezae-procumbentis, but he describes it as a Puccinia, and says distinctly that the spores have a septum, so that all the references to Uromyces Lespedezae-procumbentis are wholly unwarranted. He described no such species. His Puccinia Lespedezae-violaceae is doubtless the common Uromyces which occurs on all our species of Lespedeza so that the appendage "violaceae" to his name is worse than useless and better be dropped. I give some remarks on this in the 29thReport, which I hope will see daylight before many more months pass.


I inclose specimens of the three species you desire Microsphaeria VanBruntiana it is possible I may sometimes have named M. Peckii for you. Mr. Gerard first gave it that name, but afterwards for some unaccountable reason changed the name to M. VanBruntiana under which he published it.


Cladosporium depressum is the same thing that I named once for you, Cladosporium puccinioides P. & C. I afterwards concluded it was best to refer it as above as the only difference was in the relative length of the spores and flocci, so far as I could judge by the description and it scarcely seemed best to make a species on such a slight difference.


I have glanced through your box and package and as there does not seem to be anything promising in them and nearly all require the microscope I will if you are in no hurry for their determination, defer their examination a little as I am obliged to get my own collections in shape for making up my report.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


P. S. Your 6 Nov. 5 is the Microsphaeria VanBruntiana, which I inclose.


[Received, no note]


Vol. 12 (77) [K 51]


Albany, Nov. 14th, 1878


My Dear Sir,


The specimens of "Uncinula Bivonae Lev." belong to Uncinula macrospora Peck. "Valsa torulosa B. & C." or "Valsa tubulosa B. & C." I have a specimen from Dr. Curtis labelled "Valsa tubulosa B. & C.", but Berkeley did not publish any thing under this name. The nearest to it, and possibly the same thing is Valsa tribulosa B. & C. Your specimens are in the spermatoid condition and I can not say positively what they are.


"Diplodia Buxi Fr." This was probably named from comparison with a specimen received from Dr. Curtis. His specimen is like yours and has the same name, but on looking over Fries I find no "Diplodia Buxi". The specimen is probably a sterile condition (for I find no spores) of Sphaeropsis Candollei, which in turn is given in the Handbook as a form of Sphaerella Buxi DC.

"Strobilomyces strobilaceus Berk." is Boletus strobilaceus Scop. I prefer the latter name for I see no good reason for separating this plant from the Boleti, and Fries in his last Epicrisis retains it in the genus Boletus and gives Berkeley's name as a synonym.

Craterium leucocephalum Ditm. is correct. "Didymium leucocephalum" must be a mistake.


Ag. ochropurpureus belongs to subgenus ClitocybeU.

"Who is Sphaerea Tiliae Fr.?" It is somewhat difficult to say. The Handbook p. 461 says it is Rabenhorstia Tiliae Fr. At p. 833 it gives Rabenhorstia Tiliae Fr. as the pycnidia of Valsa Tiliae Tul. I have supposed this to be its position. Rostafinski makes two sections of the Myxomycetes, placing all with blackish-brown or violet-brown spores in the first section, and all with spores otherwise colored in the second. Tubulina (which takes the place of Licea in the Handbook) he places near the beginning of the second section. If you retain the arrangement of the Handbook let it take the place of Licea.


Polyporus rhodellus belongs to the Resupinati.

Hydnum fuscoatrum belongs to the Resupinati of that genus.


I inclose a specimen of Eurotium Herbariorum - one on Umbilicaria and one on leaves of Nesaea verticillata. It is not very particular where it grows. I have looked at 17 Nov. 10, on Hedera Helix stems. I find spores but think it is probably Vermicularis Trichella Grev. which usually occurs on the leaves.


I would have been glad to see you had you come to Albany but will hope to see you here in January at any rate.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck




Vol. 12 (82) [K 46 - a U.S. postcard]




[In Clinton's handwriting:] Sphaeria picea, Pers. belongs to [space left blank]

[Peck's reply:] It is difficult to say. I have never seen it in fruit nor seen the fruit described. Fries and Schweinitz place it in the Seriataewith such species as S. filicina, S. longissima, S. nebulosa, S. Typhae, etc., some of which have since been place in various other genera such as Dothidea, Phoma, Septoria and the like. For the present better let it remain anywhere among the Cu..icolous Sphaeriae.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[Received, no note. Addressed by Clinton to himself. Albany

Postmark Dec 20.]




Vol. 12 (90) [K 34, 35, 36, 37]


Albany, Jan. 16th, 1879


My Dear Sir,


In order to get space for the explanations I have put your list on larger paper. Some of the species, like Ag. bombycinus and Phyllactinia guttata I had supposed I had reported long ago. How they came to be overlooked I do not know. Quite a number examined under pressure of work and reported to you, upon a reexamination seemed doubtful and were laid aside till I could satisfy myself concerning them and so never reported. Others were reported under different names from those they now bear owing partly to erroneous determinations and partly to a change of genus and others still are recent sendings and are in the 31st and 32nd Reports which are yet to appear. In the 31st is an entire review of the Myxogasters according to Rostafinski's arrangement. In this a large number of the names have had to be changed to agree with his nomenclature and if you wish your list to conform to this you had better send me the names of all your Myxogasters for review.


I have prefixed a cross to the names in your list which I should employ. I do not see why you should blow up Mr. Homes. The remarks which his call elicited from you were well take, published in full in our papers and pronounced very good and appropriate.


I have just received a fine large puff-ball from New Mexico which promises to be something new in species if not in genus. I have written for more information concerning its habits. The specimen sent me is not quite mature and has not yet opened.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Judge G. W. Clinton 


[No date of receipt given.]


 [There are letters from a Mr. Homes in the index]


[K 35]

x1. Aecidium cimicifugatum. The specimens were very poor and I thought best to wait for better ones before reporting it.

2 Aethalium vaporarium  This species, Ae septicum and Ae ferrincola are all included by Rostafinski under the name x Tuligo varians Sommf. The 31st report will straighten out these Myxogasters.

x3 Ag. bombycinus       I supposed this had been reported but do not find it so. It is a good species and we have it in the Herbarium.

x4 Ag. appendiculatus   Was erroneously reported as Ag. cernuus. 23d Report p. 100.

5 Ag. hydrophilus       Doubtful. Better omit it. I have only seen the imperfect specimen you sent.

6 Ascochyta (Septoria) Toxicodendri. This was omitted intentionally because I wished to satisfy myself more fully concerning its characters, but I never found it a second time. It is my belief that it is a Septoria.

x7 Cenangium Viburni    Omitted probably by some oversight.

8 Cheiromyces Beaumontii [in pencil, Clinton's handwriting: "Is it reported"] This name was taken from a specimen sent me by Dr. Curtis, but Berkeley published but one species and that under the name Cheiromyces stillatus. Both are probably the same thing, and the latter name must be used.

x10 Chondriaderma spumarioides  In 31st Report.

11  Cladosporium heterosporum   Doubtful, omit it. It probably belongs to the more recent genus Heterosporium.

x12 Clavaria muscoides.         I believe this to be the same as Clavaria tetragona Schw., and would substitute it for that name.

x13 Clavaria pyxidata.  This should have been in the 28th Report but by some oversight was omitted.

x14 Corticium crocicreas        Probably good, but so scant I did not report it.

15 Corticium arachnoideum       I have not been fully satisfied concerning this and waited for better specimens.   [In pencil, Clinton's handwriting: "Waiting for better specimen"]

x16 Corticium polyporoideum     In 23d Report.

x17 Cyathus vernicosus          In 22d Report as Cyathus campanulatus

18 Cystopus minor               This only differed from x C. culicus in its smaller pustules and I finally concluded not to separate it.

19 Cytispora Persicae           This is probably only a state of some Sphaeria and I was not particular to report it.

x20 Daedalea unicolor           In 22d Report as Daedalea cinerea.

21 Diatrype brunnea \__ x Diatrype quadrata Schw. Omitted because of the

22 Diatrype obesa   /     doubt of its identity.

x23 Diatrype platystoma         26th Report p. 85

24 Dichaena strumosa            Omitted from doubt.

25 Diderma vernicosum           23d Report p. 53 as Lescarpus vernicosus. Rostafinski gives it as x Leocarpus fragilis Dicks. under which name it will appear in 31st Report.

x26 Dothidea Graminis           23d Report p. 64 as Sphaeria Graminis.

x27 Dothidea Potentillae        22d Report p. 100 as Sphaeria Potentillae

28 Eutypa limaeformis           22d Report p. 99 as Sphaeria limaeformis

x29 Eutypa spinosa              I have deferred reporting this because I never could satisfy myself of the difference between this and the preceding. I did not want to give the same species under two different names. I half suspect that what was reported as S. limaeformis should have been spinosa. Better take Eutypa  spinosa and omit the other.

30 Exidia recisa                Probably an error for xExidia repanda

31 Geoglossum atropurpureum.    I do not remember this, and doubt if it occurs in our state.           

32 Glenospora ramosum           I do not remember this, and doubt if it occurs in our state.  [Overwritten in pen in Clinton's handwriting "Errors of mine"

x33 Helminthosporium episphaericum  29 Report p. 52. This will probably prove to be H. Tiara B. & C., but it is Cookes determination, and poorly accords with Berkeley's description.

x23 Helotium citrinum           22nd Report p. 95 as Peziza citrina

x35 Helotium herbarum           22nd Report p. 95 as Peziza herbarum

x36 Helotium sarmentorum        Not yet reported.

x37 Helotium versiforme         25th Report p. 82 were a large [unusual form that Rostafinsky described as Craterellus caespitosus; words difficult to read]

x38 Hygrophorus miniatus        Omitted because a peculiar form of it was reported as a distinct species under the name Hygroporus  congelatus. see 23d Report p. 114. I do not think H. congelatus can be maintained.

x39 Hydnum cinnabarinum         Will appear in 32d Report.


[K 36]

x40 Hydnum septentrionale       22d Report p. 85 as Hydnum cirrhatum. This was Dr. Curtis' determination but I am sure he was mistaken.

41 Hygrophorus miniatus.        See number 38.

42 Hysterium betulignum         Not distinct from xHyst. pulicare

43 Hysterium biforme            This is xHyst. truncatulum C. & P. in 30th Report p. 63. It is somewhat doubtful if it really is distinct from H. pulicare after all.

44 Hysterium Graminum.          Doubtful. Omit it.

45 Irpex paradoxus              I do not feel sure of this. Better omit it.

46 Isaria pruinosa              I have no recollection of this.


[In pen, Clinton's handwriting: "Error"]

47 Isaria clavata               If I remember rightly this is a recent sending and if not doubtful will appear in the future.

x48 Lamproderma violaceum       Will appear in 31st Report.

49 Leotia viscosa               I doubt if it is anything but a form of xL. lubrica. Better omit it.

x50 Lycoperdon pusillum         Will appear in 32d Report.

x51 Macrosporium concinnum      Probably omitted by some oversight.

52 Marasmius Sullivantii        I have no recollection of this.


[In pen, Clinton's handwriting: "Error"]

53 Massaria atro-inguinans      Doubtful. Better omit it.

x54 Melampsora populina         23d Report, p. 91 as Uredo epitea which is one form of it.

x55 Melampsora salicina          22d Report, p. 91 as Uredo epitea which is one form of it.

56 Melampsora Tremulae          Probably = 54. Omit it.

x57 Melanconium Americanum      Will appear in 31st Report.

x58 Melogramma gyrosa           I do not remember ever to have seen this fertile and probably omitted it until I could see it in fruit.

59 Microsphaeria Clintonii      Probably an error for xUncinula Clintonii

x60 Microsphaeria Viburni       25 Report p. 95 as Microsphaaeria Hedwigii.

61 Nectria ochracea.            Probably omitted because of the poor condition of the specimens.    

62 Nectria punicea              Probably omitted because of the poor condition of the specimens.

63 Oidium aureum                If I remember rightly I finally concluded this was not distinct from xOidium fulvum.

64 Oidium concentricum.         I believe I finally concluded this was doubtful and omitted it.

x65 Paxillus porosus            Will appear in 32d Report.

x66 Pestalozzia Guepini         Should have been in the 29th Report, omitted by some oversight.

67 Peziza erineum               Doubtless intended for xP. erinaceus.

68 Peziza hirtum                Doubtful. Probably only a form of xP. scutellata.

69 Peziza myceticola            Berkeley regards this as a variety of Peziza vulgaris. I have not reported it being in doubt of its specific value.

70 Peziza occidentalis          I suspect this is the same as xPeziza hesperidea

x71 Peziza planodiscus          In 31st Report.

x72 Peziza sanguinea            Should have been in the 22d Report. Omitted by oversight.

x73 Peziza sphaerella           Will appear in 32d Report.

74 Peziza vulgaris.             Omitted because mixed up with 69.

75 Phacidium dentatum           Doubtful. Omit it.

76 Phlebia cinnabarina          The same as xPhlebia radiata.

77-85 Phomas.                   With one exception I have no confidence in these determinations. Better omit the whole batch.

x83 Phoma longissimum           24th Report p. 99 as Sphaeria longissima. It is variously referred by different authors, to Phoma, Sphaeropsis, etc.

x86 Phyllactinia guttata        Another oversight. It is good and belongs to us clearly, and is in 29th Report p. 79.

x87 Physarum cinereum           23d Report p. 53 as Didymium cinereum. In 31st Report it will be Physarum cinereum.

x88 Physarum contextum          Will appear in 31st Report. It is the Diderma flavidum of the 28th.

89 Pilacre Petersii             Probably not distinct from xPilacre faginea, 26  Rep. p. 79. hence not reported.

x90 Padosphaera Kunzei          In 24 Report p. 100 as Podosphaeria Cerasi. P. Kinsei is the better name.

x91 Polyactis vulgaris          In 31st Report.

x92 Polyporus induratus         In 31st Report.

x93 Polyporus Morgani           In 32nd Report.

x94 Polyporus nitidus           In 26th Report p. 70 as Polyporus


x95 Polyporus pergameuus        In 22d Report p. 84 as Polyporus laceratus Berk.


[K 37]

x96 Polyporus pubescens         In 22d Report p. 84 as Polyporus Sullivantii

x97 Polyporus rhodellus         In 26 Report p. 70 as Polyporus attenuatus.

P. attenuatus is probably only a very thin form of it with smaller pores, and will scarcely be able to be kept distinct.

x98 Polyporus varius.           Omitted through some doubt as to its correct determination. It seems confused with P. picipes.

x99 Puccinia Andropogi          Fearing it was not distinct from P. Graminis it was omitted till I could satisfy myself.

x100 Puccinia Cirsii            25 Report p. 113 as P.. Compositarum

x101 Puccinia Prunorum          25 Report p. 116

x102 Puccinia Saniculae         The specimens were very meagre if I remember rightly and probably not reported on that account.

103 Rhinotrichum                I do not remember this.

x104 Saprolegnia ferax          Deferred for a better understanding of it. It is the fish fungus and thought by some to be an alga.

105 Sarcostroma Berkeleii       Having sent a specimen of this to Cooke he was in doubt about and while waiting for the doubt to be cleared up the thing was forgotten.

106-111 Septorias               These like the Phomas are rather uncertain characters. Better pay no attention to them.

x112 Septoria Waldsteiniae      In 31st Report.

x113 Solenia fasciculata         Reporting probably postponed till I could get better specimens.

114& 115 Speiras                I never could feel satisfied with these and omitted them.

x116 Sphaerella maculaeformis   26th Report p. 86, as Sphaeria maculaeformis.

x117 Sphaerella Sarraceniae     24th Report p. 99 as Sphaeria Sarraceniae.

118 Sphaeria capillifera       Probably some doubt caused me to omit this. I have forgotten about it.

119 Sphaeria complanata         This was probably sterile and doubtful

120 Sphaeria coniformia         I do not remember it.

x121 Sphaeria coprophila        23d Report p. 63 as Hypoxylon coprophilum

x122 Sphaeria infectoria        In 32d Report.

123 Sphaeria pulviscula         I have not put this in 32d Report as there was very little and not very good.

124 Sphaeropsis Maclurae        Specimens were poor and so not reported.



species described by Cooke under the same name.

125 Sphaerotheca pannosa.       Doubtful. Omit it.

x126 Sporotrichum virescens.    In 32d Report.   

127 Steganosporium              Do not remember it.

128 Stemonitis physarioides     Will appear in 31st Report as x Lamproderma physarioides. It is also in 29th p. 47.

129 Stilbum erythrocephalum      I do not now recall this.

130 Trichia cerina              30th Report p. 50 as x Trichia fallax

131 Trichia scabra              24th Report p. 84 as x Trichia chrysosperma

132 Trichobasis umbellatarum    Omit it. It is only a form of xPuccinia umbelliferarum.

x133 Tulostoma mammosum          23d Report p. 53 as T. fimbriatum

134 Uncinula Torreyi            26th Report p. 80 as xU. parvula, which is the proper name for it.

x135 Uromyces Junci             22 Report p. 91 as Puccinia Junci

x136 Uromyces polymorphus       In 31st Report

x137 Uromyces Trifolii          In 31st Report

x138 Ustilago Erythronii        Overlooked in its proper place but in 27th

Report p. 115

x139 Valsa stellulata           In 23 Report p. 63 as Diatrype haustellata.

I doubt if we have the true D. haustellata.

x141 Vermicularia albomaculata  In 31st Report.

x145 Vermicularia trichella     In 31st Report.

140, 142, 143, 144 are Vermicularias that I do not have much confidence in. Better omit them.

x146 Verticillium lateritium            In 32d Report.



Vol. 12 (91) [K ]  This appears to be a letter to S. H. Wright



Vol. 12 (97) [K 27]


Albany, Jan. 20th, 1879


My Dear Sir,


The specimen of Stegonosporium betulinum proves to be Coryneum disciforme Kze. a form of which is in 28th Report p. 59. The "Rhinotrichum" is not in condition to be satisfactorily determined.


Leotia lutea is in 25th Report p. 97 as Viborissea. The former name is better.

Microsphaera holosericea is in 25th Report p. 95

Stilbum erythrocephalum I now remember. It is I think in 31st Report.


I forgot to say that I find no Melogramma gyrosa except the little you sent which is mounted in the Herbarium. It looks much like a red Hypoxylon growing on bark or decaying wood.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received - no note]


Vol. 12 (104) [K 19]


Albany, Jan. 29th,  1879


My Dear Sir,


The moss from South Africa is so far as I can see the common Hedwigia ciliata which we have here. The specimen from Macoun contains at least three mosses and two liverworts so that it is not easy to say what it was intended for. None of it appears to be in good fruiting condition so that I do not think it worth while to try to make it out.


I have not the Memoirs of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and do not know where it can be found. I am in occasional correspondence with Dr. Kalchbrenner and perhaps can find out. Some time ago a gentleman sent me some specimens of an Agaric to determine for him. I pronounced them Ag. sapidus Kalchb. He seemed to be dissatisfied with the determination and immediately wrote back that somebody else had pronounced them Ag ostreatus. Although feeling tolerably certain I was right I sent specimens with the spores to Kalchbrenner for his determination. He pronounced them to be Ag sapindus and says that he has never seen such spores in Ag. ostreatus; which of course makes me feel good. I shall send Dr. K. my reports and may get his notices of the S. African fungi in return. Until I get them it would not be well to try to identify the fungi.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received - no note]


[The fungi from South Africa probably come from correspondence with MacOwan - see his letters on line.]


Vol. 12 (109) [K 14 - a U.S. postcard]


Albany, Feb. 22d, 1879


My Dear Sir,


My miserable eye is again on the rampage, being inflamed so that I dare not use the microscope and must wait a little before examining the specimens of Nov. 2.


I know nothing of the connection between throat diseases and Apple fungi - and could only tell the fungi found on apple. I have little confidence to believe that this is the source of diphtheria.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


Received -no note]



Vol. 12 (113) [K 10]


Albany, Mar. 13th, 1879


My Dear Sir,


Thanks for the specimens on Palmetto leaf. These show the chinks in the stroma and put another phase on the affair. The fungus must therefore be referred to Rhytisma instead of Dothidea and will take the name Rhytisma sparsum P. & C. The specimens are also fertile and very satisfactory.


Very truly yours


Charles H. Peck


[No date of receipt given. This is the last of the letters Peck wrote to Clinton that are preserved in the “Clinton Correspondence” at the Buffalo Museum of Science, Buffalo, New York.]