|
Correspondence of Charles Peck and G. W. Clinton February 25, 2011 |
|
The
Correspondence of Charles
Peck (1833-1917) and George
William Clinton (1807 1885) 1873 Vol. 9 (74) [C 157] My Dear Sir, Fowler's specimens 1 Dermatea furfuracea, formerly. In Handbook it is Peziza furfuracea
Fr. section Encaelia. 2 Calicium subtile as you have it. 3 & 25 Dothidea Trifolii Fr. (no spores) 4 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode formerly, now deemed a form of Nectria cinnabarina Fr. 6 Tremella mesenterica Retz. 7 Pertusaria velata (Turn.) Nyl. (a lichen) 12 Tremella foliacea Pers. 14 Hysterium pulicare Fr. 16 A doubtful affair. 17 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull. = (Hypoxylon fragiforme Fr.) 18 Polyporus scutellatus Schw. 19 Plicatura Alni Pk. 24th Rep. p. 76 20 Hymenochaete rubiginosa Lev. as given in Handbook, formerly
Stereum rubiginosum Fr. 21 Erineum luteolum on lower surface of leaf. One spot of Rhytisma
acernum on the upper surface. 22 Insect work 23 Imperfect. The omitted numbers I did not find in the packet. I forgot to say that I retained your packet of Sphaerias, Blake
Coll., for further examination. There were some things that I think may be
determined by taking more time, that otherwise must remain "incog". Please accept my hearty thanks for your most favorable notice of my
work before the Board of Regents. What does Senator Bowen mean by proposing to abolish the Board of
Regents? I suppose that had been tried sufficiently some time ago. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Jan. 18 Vol. 9 (78) [C 152] My Dear Sir, The fellow on pigweed is Phoma longissimum Berk. Handbook Vol. 1. p, 421 = (Sphaeria longissima Pers.) No Report later than the 22nd has been issued, but I thought you had
advance copies of my part of the 23d & 24th. If not I can yet furnish you
with one of the 23d but have no more of the 24th. Did the descriptions of Cuban Fungi reach you? I had started them
before I got your note telling me I need not send them. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Jan. 22 Vol. 9 (88) [C 142] My Dear Sir, I have seen a copy of the Appropriation Bill, as reported and I am
pleased to say that the item for compensation of botanist is in all right. I
confess I had some fears on this point, and I cannot help feeling that this
continuation is in great measure if not wholly due to your efforts. I want to
thank you most heartily for such earnest and successful efforts in this
matter. Prof. Hall too feels joyous. They have only reduced the appropriation
for drawings five hundred dollars, although he expected it would be cut out
altogether. I feel like taking fresh courage and a new start. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Feb. 14 Vol. 9 (97) [C 133] My Dear Sir, The specimens of Feb. 20 from a garden pot in
greenhouse is probably a Peziza but I do not find it fertile. I have looked over Blake's Sphaerias. In some cases the generic name
only needed changing. Such as I have altered or as I thought you would want I
return. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Feb. 24 Vol. 9 (101) [C 129] My Dear Sir, Blake's specimen, marked A is Sphaeria Collinsii Schw. At all events
it agrees with his description of that species. It is an interesting species
but the specimens do not afford perfect fruit. Fowler's Specimens x1
Tubercularia vulgaris Tode. Now considered the conidia of Nectria cinnabarina -2 & 3 Cenangium Pinastri Fr. x4
Calicium Curtisii Tuck. (A lichen) x5 Clavaria fusiformis Sow. x6
Hirneola Auricula-Judae Berk. in Handbook. (Exidia
Auricula-Judae Fr.) x7
A small tuft of Alectoria jubata L. and some imperfect Sphaeria or other
fungus. x8 Dothidea graminis Fr. x9
Ustilago urveolorum Ful. [?uveolorum?] x10
& 11 Panus stipticus Bull. x12
Seemingly a Peziza but it came all broken up and I do not recognise it. x13
Polyporus nigropurpurascens Schw. 14 & x15 Polyporus laceratus Berk. x16 Daedalea cinerea Fr. x17
Grandinia alutacea B. & R. x18
Polyporus ferruginosus Schrad.? x19 Old, discolored and uncertain x20
Sphaeria ulmea Schw. I suspect this may be Dothidea ulmi of the Handbook but
it does not agree (as well as I would like) with the description in the
Handbook. x21 Septoria species
uncertain x22
Uromyces Limonii Lev. x23
Erineum fagineum Pers. x24 Erineum roseum Schultz The winter is indeed severe and I long for spring to come. These
harsh winters and excessively hot summers try the constitutions of men. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Feb. 27 Vol. 9 (104) [C 126] My Dear Sir, Mr. Cowles mosses are 8 Pylaisaea intricata Hedw. 9
Orthotrichum speciosum Nees. ? 10 Ceratodon purpureus Brid. The fruit of No. 9 is not very good and it is therefore best to
leave it in doubt till better is found before deciding fully, though I have
scarcely a doubt of its identity. Mr. Warne sends from Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received March 7 Vol. 9 (112) [C 118] My Dear Sir, I return the specimens with labels named so far as I am able to do
it. Of the Volcano specimens I regret that I am able to recognize so
few. 1 Pogonatum alpinum Brid. 3 Hypnum tamariscinum Hedw. 12 Hypnum Schreberi Willd. 14 Neckera pennata var.? The noticeable differences are branches
longer and less regular, fruit less abundant, leaves serrulate toward the
apex, perichaetial leaves longer pointed. Possibly some would consider it a
distinct species. I suspect there may be one or two new species among the remainder
but it is unsatisfactory dealing with them in the absence of fruit. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received March 18 Vol. 9 (114) [C 116] My Dear Sir, I have not Hobkirk's Synopsis of British Mosses and would most
certainly be glad to get your spare copy. Although I have dwelt so closely to
fungi my old-time enthusiasm for Mosses occasionally revives and only the
pressure of other thoughts keeps it down. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received [no date noted] Vol. 9 (116) [C 114] My Dear Sir, It is no difficult matter to confound two mosses so closely
resembling each other as do H. tamiscinum and H. delicatulum. I send a bit of
each with opercula or lids on the capsules. Placing them side by side you
will see what is regarded as the most available character for separating
them, viz. the difference in the lids. The lid of H. delicatulum in some
descriptions is given as conic-acuminate which is really more accurate for
our specimens than "conical" I think, however, that in the dried
specimens the acumination is more prominent than in fresh or soaked
specimens. The other point of difference between the two species is in the
perichaetial leaves - "fringed" in tamariscinum, not fringed in
delicatulum. The character of the ramification though an indication is not
always to be relied on so that without the fruit I never feel perfectly
secure in trying to separate these two mosses. I do the most of my microscopic work with two powers - 1st a 1 1/2
inch objective with B eye piece, magnifying about 50 diameters, for all
coarser objects, as perithecia etc. 2nd a 1/5 inch objective with B eye piece
for spores. This gives a magnifying power of about 400 diameters, which in
most cases is all that is necessary and it is more convenient working than
with higher powers. For the spores of fungi I generally moisten with a drop of water
after I have placed them on the slide. Use enough water to flow nicely around
the object and give a clear field, but not enough to flow out and above the
thin glass cover. It swells out the spore and gives a clearer view of its
shape. It is also good to soften tissues and render flexible the leaves of
mosses. Care must be taken with high powers not to get the object too large -
the merest trifle is enough. You would do well to practice a little with the
larger spores at first, such as those of the Puccinias, Uredos etc. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck P.S. Of course with the higher powers your object must be very thin
and the thin glass cover pressed down close to the slide. If in working you
should meet with any difficulty inform me what it is and I will gladly do
what I can to help you overcome it. Received March 18 Vol. 9 (118) [C 112] My Dear Sir, The Synopsis of British Mosses is received and I have looked it over
with great interest. Very many thanks for your kindness. I think there must
be a few more mosses in the Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received March 23 Vol. 9 (125) [C 105] My Dear Sir, The specimen of Apr. 2nd on willow seems to be Stereum purpureum Fr.
old and faded. Thanks for the copy of your interesting address. I am especially
delighted to learn of the magnitude of the Herbarium of the Society, and a
little surprised withall for I had no idea it was so large. Your energy and enthusiasm seems to be boundless. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received A[/ 25 Vol. 9 (130) [C 100] My Dear Sir, No 1 not being a botanical specimen I turned over to Prof. Hall who thought
he might be able to find out its name. No. 2 is a Didymodon near D. rubellus but a distinct species I
think. I do not find any specimen or description that agrees with it exactly. 3 This I think is Hendersonia Theaecola Cooke [Grevillea, Dec. p.
90] The perithecia appear to be on only one side of the leaf, otherwise it
seems to agree. 4 Insect work. There are mites on the
leaves which probably give them the " mildewed"
appearance. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Ap. 13 Vol. 9 (131) [C 99] My Dear Sir, "A" Apr. 12 From tanbark in a conservatory" I
consider Agaricus (Lepiota) cepoestipes Sow. though the stem is not clearly
swollen in the middle so far as these dry specimens show. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Ap. 15 Vol. 9 (133) [C 97] My Dear Sir, The Sclerotium of Apr. 14th is not described in Fries. It comes
between S. excentricum and S. Semen - perhaps a modified form of one or the
other. Cooke seems to consider them compact growths of mycelium - not perfect
fungi. I could find no terminal appendages to the spores
of the fungus on C amellia leaves, hence could not refer it to Pestalozzia,
although its habitat pointed in that direction. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Ap. 17 Vol. 9 (138) [C 92] My Dear Sir, It is not possible to determine the specimen from Dr. Torrey. It has
been pressed to death but appears as if a Craterellus or perhaps
Cantharellus. The Mosses of Apr. 16th do look refreshing. 1 Schistidium apocarpum Br. & Sch. (Grimmia apocarpa in Hobkirk) 2 Orthotrichum anomalum Hedwig. Apr. 18th x1
Appears like a young Peziza but is without fruit and must remain
"uncertain." 2 I find flocci and spores as in Cladosporium but they are under the
cuticle - a singular place for a Cladosporium. x3 Valsa nivea Fr. (but not in very good condition) 4 & 5 are as much puzzlers as ever. x6
Probably Hysterium tortile Schw. but in wretched condition. 7 In statu quo. 8 I do not think it a lichen, but a fungus.
I do not know just where to refer it. Wish you might find more of it. x9
In statu quo. x10
Microthyrium Smilacis DeNot according to Dr. Curtis, but I never found it
fertile. x11
I think is Irpex paradoxus Schrad. - new to us. Can
you get more. 12 Aecidium ? 13 Not determined x14
Valsa profusa Fr. According to Cooke, but in miserable condition. x15 Some imperfect Nectria x16-21
Are waiting Cookes report. He wrote me some time ago that he was waiting for
Berkeley to get through with his notices of North American Fungi, then he
(Cooke) would take up my sendings and give them in Grevillea. I am glad to hear you are going to issue a Bulletin. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Ap. 20 [To find Grevillea] - Vol. 9 (139) [C 91] My Dear Sir, Of Apr. 20th 1 "On Oak" seems to be two lichens Lecanora subfusca reddish (sterile) Buellia parasema black 2 Sterile & uncertain x3
Macrosporium sarcinula B. & Br. given also (in Handbook) as a form of
Sphaeria herbarum. Apr. 22nd Mosses and strings of cells - Torula-like but I am unable to locate
it exactly. Apr. 25th I return scraps of the second installment of Oregon Mosses. The one
marked "Hypnum Neckeroides" with a query is an interesting thing.
It is related to Hypnum Alleghaniense under which in Icones, p. 161 Sullivant
puts Hypnum neckeroides Hook. as a synonym but with
an added remark that indicates slight
doubt; saying that the inflorescence is dioecious in H. Neckeroides. In your
specimens the inflorescence is dioecious, the perichaetial leaves are
costate, and the stem leaves are longer pointed and spinulose-serrate, three
characters in which it differs from Hypnum Alleghaniense, so that I believe
it a distinct species, and if not Hypnum neckeroides then a new species. I
have no authentic specimens of H.Neckeroides for comparison. I have retained
the fertile specimen which was in a separate piece of paper, but will return
it if you wish. I wish it were possible to get more of this in good fruiting
condition. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck P.S. Lesquereux says in Catalogue of Pacific Coast Mosses that
Hypnum Neckeroides of Drummond Coll. No. 119 is the same as Hyp.
Alleghaniense but that Hypnum Neckeroides Hook. from
Received Ap. 26 Vol. 9 (142) [C 88] My Dear Sir, Of Apr. 24th x1 Hypoxylon Young or
imperfect may be either fuscum cohaerens or argilla 2 Hypoxylon coccineum Bull. x3
Cheirospora botryospora Fr. Pretty under the microscope. x4
Tympanis alnea Pers. 5 Nothing good x6
A lichen, probably Opegrapha varia. x7
Polyporus ? x8
Diatrype brunnea C. & P. I suspect it is Diatrype obesa B. & C. but
Cooke named it for me as above. x9
Seems to be a lichen - Pyrenula, but I am not sure of the species. x10
Hysterium Awaiting Cooke's
decision. x11
Sphaeria limaeformis Schw. x12
Scorias spongiosa Schw. x13
Hypoxylon concentricum Grev. x14 Hypoxylon cohaerens Fr. x15
Hysterium, sterile & uncertain. x16 Lichenous crust Apr. 25th x1
Aecidium claytoniatum Schw. 2 Unknown x3
Scorias spongiosa Schw. x4 Penicillium crustaceum Fr. x5
Nothing good. x6
Irpex Tulipiferae Schw. x7
Old Lycoperdon. I have seen it before but believe it to be an undescribed species.
I hope the coming season to make a revision of this genus. We have more
species than has been supposed. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Ap. 29 Vol. 9 (144) [C 86] My Dear Sir, Neither specimen of Apr. 26th is fertile and hence both are indeterminable. In the package of Mosses of Apr. 28th I find Hypnum lutescens l Hypnum crispifolium l Hypnum triquetrum l ----
repeated Hypnum Oreganum l Hypnum myosuroides l Hypnum splendens Hedw.
l Hypnum Nuttallii Wils.
l Antitrichia curtipendula Brid.
l -- New ones Antitrichia Californica Sullliv.l Neckera Douglassii Hook.
l Of these I return samples as you request. Wrights Fungi are at hand
but not yet opened. Judging from the size of the bundle it will take a little
time to go through it. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received May 1 Vol. 9 (154) [C 76] My Dear Sir, I am unable to get any satisfaction out of the specimens of May 2nd. 1 is a Hydnum but I can not say what species 2 Looks Rhytisma-like but is without any trace of fruit and may
after all be a gall. 3 I detect no fungus. I have looked through the Wright Coll. and named such as I could.
Most of those in white papers were well named so far as I could recognize
them. Many were in such a condition that I could not tell whether right or
wrong. These I left just as I found them, with the name which was probably
given by the aid of an accompanying description. I will return the package to
you in a day or two. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton P. S. of May 4 1 Imperfect 2 Opegrapha varia (Pers.) Fr. Lichen. 3 Cytispora leucosperma Fr. said to be a state of Valsa ambiens Fr. Received May 10 Vol. 9 (156) [C 74] My Dear Sir, May 12th x1
Xylaria polymorpha Grev. x2 Urnula Craterium Fr. x3 Frullania Grayana ( x4 Torula sp. uncertain x5 Stereum hirsutum Fr. x6 Probably Helvella esculenta, but sterile & badly mashed x7
Has the form of Ditiola radicata but does not agree with the description.
Uncertain what it is x8
Depasea Kalmicola Schw. x9 Imperfect x10 Imperfect x11 Imperfect x12 Polyporus brumalis Fr. x13 Uncertain x14 Uncertain x15 Cenangium prunastri Fr. x16
Valsa Colliculus Warnst. x17
Septonema spilomeum Berk. x18
Sphaeria limaeformis Schw. x19 Imperfect x20 Sterile & Uncertain I have not yet received the Bulletin you mentionied in your note of
the 6th instant. Thanks for the kind offer to publish in it new species of
fungi. I scarcely know what to say in regard to it. I certainly wish they
might be published promptly. Already two names which I had given to new species, have been appropriated by others while my species
have been waiting for publication, but it is a delicate matter to deal with.
Prof. Hall has long been talking about issuing a Bulletin and if he should do
it I suppose all my material would have to go there. If he should not then
perhaps he would not grumble if descriptions of new species went elsewhere.
At any rate I expect soon to be busy in the field and would not have much if
anything to communicate right away, unless past reports yet unpublished
should be drawn upon. Wee, Parsons & Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received May 14 Vol. 9 (159) [C 70] My Dear Sir, May 14th In one envelope is x1
Nectria Celastri (Schw.) C. & P. (Sphaeria Celastri Schw.) x2
Ditiola radicata Fr. Probably "7 May 12" is the same in younger
state. Fries remarks that this sometimes so closely resembles Dacrymyces
stillatus as scarcely to be separated from it. ------------------- In the other envelope is x1
Agaricus (Collybia) velutipes Curt. x2
Physcomitrium pyriforme B. & S. x3
Polyporus versicolor Fr. Probably. - It is too old. x4 Cytispora chrysosperma Fr. A form of Valsa nivea 5 Uncertain 6 Only filaments. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received May 18 Vol. 9 (162) [C 67] My Dear Sir, Of May 16 1 is a Hysterium but I am uncertain of the species, as the spores
seem scarce and imperfect. 2 Leptostroma filicinum Fr. said to be an incomplete state of
Dothidea filicina Fr. 3 Sphaeria Sarraceniae Schw. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received May 21 Vol. 9 (169) [C 60] My Dear Sir, Of May 19th x1
Diatrype brunnea C. & P. but I suspect it is D. obesa B. & C. When x2 Polyporus species
uncertain x3
Helvella esculenta Pers. = Gyromitra esculenta Fr. in the Handbook. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received May 27 Vol. 9 (171) [C 58] My Dear Sir, Of May 24th x1 No well developed fungus x2
Ustilago - probably a new species. Secure all you can of it. x3 Imperfect & uncertain x4
Merulius species incerta. May 25th x1
I think a Bryum but it is not easy to say what species in this sterile
condition. x2,
x3 & x4 are all sterile and uncertain but Sphaeria like in appearance. The copy of the Bulletin is received. It is a good beginning, and evinces much energy and activity on the part of Mr. Grote. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received [no receipt date mentioned] [See letters of Augustus R. Grote, Esq. Vol. 9 (174) [C 55] My Dear Sir, I will make up for you a paper of new species of fungi and send it
if possible before next Saturday. Prof. Hall says he does not find the specimen you sent described in
any of his books but will try to get its name form Prof. Agassiz. I will include a description of your Ustilago on Erythronium leaves
in the paper on fungi and leave the specific name to be inserted by you as
you are its discoverer. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received June 1 Vol. 9 (179) [C 48] My Dear Sir, I have hastily copied the descriptions of the new species of fungi
which it seems to me desirable to have published in advance of the Reports,
and send them to you. I have consulted with Prof. Hall in regard to the
matter and he says he considers it a good thing to do. I have sometimes added a remark or two to the descriptions when I
thought it was desirable, but the paper is so excessibely long that you may
drop these all out if you think best. I have tried to make it as brief as I
could but I fear both you and the Society will be outrageously bored if you
attempt to read the paper except by title. There are about a hundred and
forty species described in it. Should your printer find any difficulty in
procurring type for the accent points I have used in designating inches and
lines it will not be difficult to substitute the words for the characters;
thus instead of 2'-3' high it can be 2-3 inches high & 2"-3: thick
it can be 2-3 lines thick. I am not at all particular about correcting the proof should the
Society conclude to publish it, but if you should wish me to I would be glad
to have it as soon as possible for I am intending soon to take a trip for
collecting. If you think there is too much of it to go in one number of the
Bulletin you are at liberty to cut it up and take it piecemeal or do anything
you think best with it. I have not yet had time to examine your specimens of May 30th. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received June 6 [Note: William T. Stearn wrote (p. 112 "Before adoption of the
metric system, devised in France at the end of the eighteenth century,
authors used the traditional units based on the human body such as the foot
(pes), the span (spithama) [i.e. the distance between the tips of the thumb
and the index finger when extended) , etc.
Linnaeus's Philosophia botanica, 262, no. 331 (1751) provides a convenient
summary: ... Linea = Linea una Mensurae perisinae = 2.25 mm." The inch,
by the way, is the "Pollex (i.e. the length of the terminal joint of the
thumb) = Uncia una parisina = 1 - Vol. 9 (185) [C 42] My Dear Sir, Of June 7th x1 Sphaeronema Spina (Schw.) 2 Appears to be a lichen but I dare not try
to locate it. x3
Septonema spilomeum Berk. 4 Seems licheny but I don't know it. x5
Diatrype and Cenangium mixed but neither in nameable condition. x6
Hysterium but no fruit & uncertain. x7
Diatrype brunnea C. & P. according to Cooke, but it seems to me scarcely
to differ from Curtis specimens of Diatrype obesa B. & C. The bright colored specimen on Rubus leaves is Uredo luminata S... I am thankful for the Ustilago Erythronii I make out nothing for the specimens of May 30th. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received June 11 Vol. 9 (192) [C 35] My Dear Sir, I return the Texan fungi separated. The specimen from Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received June 18 [Note here some
hint as to arrangement for the disposition of specimens between the two men. Vol. 9 (197) [C 28] My Dear Sir, "No 1 May 24" is very near to if not specifically the same
as "phoma depressum B. & C." among my Curtisian specimens. I do
not find the species mentioned in Curtis's Catalogue. This specimen is on
roots of ash and the spores are a mere trifle smaller than in yours. These
are the only differences I see. ----------------------- June 19th 1 Mnium affine Bland. 2 Bryum nutans Schreb. 3 Sterile and uncertain. The
other I return. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck P. S. The specimens for C. H. P. [on front margin] "Phoma depressum B. & C." Wright
Coll. is a very different thing. We must wait for Received June 22 - Vol. 9 (200) [C 25] My Dear Sir, Thanks for the specimens of Hypnum neckeroides and Fontinalis. The Aecidium of June 23 from Squaw island is probably undescribed. I
do not find any noticed on Calystegia leaves. It certainly can not be Ae.
Convolvulatum Schw. In its characters it does not differ sharply from Ae.
Compositarum but its habitat is very different. I expect to get off next week. After waiting till the appropriation
in the supply bill for the reimbursement of my last years expenses should be
payable I found that by some legerdamain it had been dropped out, although I
am quite sure it passed both houses. The appropriation for my salary however
is all right and I must do as well as I can without the other. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received June 29 Vol. 9 (205) [C 19] My Dear Sir, Of the specimens of July 21st 1 is Cenangium Berasi Fr. x2
is only an insect production but I suspect it is what Schweinitz describes as
Rhytisma Asteris. x3
Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev. but fruit immature. x5
Probably Xylaria Hypoxylon but yet in its young state. x4
A Sphaeria but I must look further before deciding on the species. x6
Peziza granulata Bull. The little masses adhering to the feet of the insects and which I
suppose you considered a fungus are the pollen-masses of Asclepias flowers.
At least I find no fungus
on the insects. July 22nd. Uredo effusa Strauss on Rose fruit. I did not have very great success in my trip after specimens though
I found one or two very interesting things. I shall try again soon. The papers you mention have not yet had time to reach me, but I am
very grateful for the kindness. I had no right to expect such liberal
treatment and will pay for the copies if you will set a price on them. I
shall not need the 5 copies you mention as the others will be all I can well
afford at present to distribute. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received July 28 Vol. 9 (210) [C 13] My Dear Sir, Specimens July 30th x1 Hypoxylon Morseii B. & C. (fide Curtis specimens) x2
Aecidium Iridis Gerard. as you suppose. x3
Aecidium tenue Schw. as you suppose. x4 No fungus x5
Uromyces - probably a new species. x6 Rhytisma Andromedae Fr. x7
Paludella squarrosa L. x8
Imperfect - seems a Tubercularia which would only be a form of some Nectria. x9 & x11 Not determinable x10 Pistillaria Muscicola Fr. x12
Puccinia - I think a new species. It would be well to give names to this and
5, and save a good supply of specimens of them. The copies of the "New Species of Fungi" are at hand. I am
delighted and cannot thank you and the Buffalo Society enough. Long may you flourish. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Aug. 5 [It appears that
the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences published a text written by Peck
entitled, more or less, “New Species of Fungi.” It appears that the first of
the Society’s bulletins had just been published, and this text of Peck’s
constitued the fifth part of the first
bulletin: Peck, Charles
Horton. 1873. “V. Descriptions of new species of fungi.” Bulletin of the Vol. 10 (3) [A 339 -two sheets, first one has no "A" code] My Dear Sir, I have just returned from the mountains. Fungi were scarce but I
found a few good things. Among my acquisitions is a Lycopodium of which I
feel proud. I am not yet satisfied whether it is a described species or not,
probably it is but it certainly is new to our flora. I send names of your specimens so far as I am able. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [second sheet] Aug. 12 1 Piggotia astroidea B. & Br. It is said also to be a form of
Dothidea ulmi Fr. and is probably = to Sphaeria Ulmea Schw. 2 Lentinus Lecomtei Fr. x3
Torula stilbospora Cd. = Coniothecium toruloideum B. & C. x5
Tremella mesenterica Retz. x4 & x 6 Undetermined Aug. 17 xA Sterile & uncertain Aug 21 x1
Conotrema urceolatum Tuck. (Returned) x2
Seems a lichen, but I do not know it. x3
Pylaisaea intricata Hedw. [A moss] x4
Uredo Smilacis Schw. Aug 22 x1
Pestalozzia - with a single
bristle at the apex; probably an undescribed species. Can you get more and
give it a name. Aug. 26. x1,
x2 & x3. I am able to make nothing of these. Aug. 27 xA No fungus xB
Septoria I have often picked this
but could never muster courage to name and describe it. Sept. 2nd. x1 Astereum complicatum Fr. x3
Aspergillus glaucus Lk. x4
Patellaria indigotica C. & P. x6
Roestelia aurantiaca Pk. x9 Imperfect x10
Coryneum clavaesporum Pk. x11
Uromyces Euphorbiae C. & P. x13 Lycoperdon pusillum Fr. x14
Hygrophorus miniatus? x15
Agaricus (Clitocybe) ochropurpureus Berk. x16
Too young. x17 Tulostoma fimbriatum Fr. x18
Polyporus ? x19
Uredo Potentillarum DC. x20 = 2 Aug. 22 2, 5, 8, 12 Not determined. Received Sept 10 Vol. 10 (25) [A 314] My Dear Sir, Yours of yesterday, as well as several others yet unopened, is at
hand. All is well with me and your specimens are not in my way, but shall be
attended to soon. My silence has been entirely due to absence, having just
returned late last night from a two weeks trip to Rhododendron maximum is very plenty in the low grounds of
Forestburgh. I found the Arceuthobium three also on spruce and what is more
interesting, a fungus on it: parasite on parasite. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Oct. 1 Vol. 10 (29) [A 310] My Dear Sir, Sept. 12 x1 Polyporus perennis Fr. 2 Illosporium roseum Fr. x3
Seems some imperfect Stereum. x4
Diatrype atropunctata Schw. x5
Sepedonium chrysospermum Lk. x7 Undetermined x8
Anomodon attenuatus & unknown sulphur-colored powder. x9
Crucibulum vulgare Tul. x10 Seems imperfect Valsa leucostoma Fr. x11 & x12 Imperfect 13 Stereum hirsutum? 14 Stereum albobadium? x15
Opegrapha varia? 16 Undetermined x17 Microsphaera Vaccinii Pk. (23d Report) x18 Undetermined x19 Puccinia coronata (Cd.) & its Uredo form x20
Puccinia Graminis Pers. x21
Ustilago Carbo Tul. according to the modern
rendering. We used to call it U. segetum Ditm. Sept. 14th x2 Hygrophorus miniatus Fr. x3
Oidium fructigenum Schrad. x6
Puccinia Menthae Pers. x7 Erineum Not now deemed a
fungus x11
Rhytisma species uncertain. x14
I find only natural scales on the leaf. The others are imperfect or
indeterminable. Sept. 15 I make out only x3
Trichobasis Rubigo-verra, which probably includes the Uredo-form of both
Puccinia graminis & P. coronata. x4
Cystopus cubicus Str. x"A" Tubercularia vulgaris Tode, a form of Nectria
cinnabarina Sept. 17 Not determined. The Hepaticae from Sept. 22nd x1
Erysiphe Martii Lk. x2
Stilbum giganteum Pk. 24th Report. Mr. Ellis has recently sent me this labeled "Coryne Ellisii
Berk." saying it is described in the Sept. number of
"Grevilea", but the description there given of Coryne Ellisii B.
& C. would never be understood by an "outsider" to mean this
plant, so far is it from correct. x3
Sporidesmium Lingula B. & C. according to Dr. Curtis's specimens. 4 Sphaeria hirsuta Fr. x5 Undetermined x6
The Hepatic is Lophocolea bidentata Nees. The moss too meagre, the fungus too
old to name. x7
Spathularia flavida Pers. x8 x9
Peziza scutellata L. Sept. 25 I do not make much out of these most of them being barren, old or
imperfect. x4 Seems a state of Valsa leucostoma Fr. x6 Geaster saccatus Fr. x7
May be a dwarf form of the same but I do not know. x10
Perhaps Schweinitz's Peziza Erineum. x18
Sent to Cooke long ago but I suppose we shall get no more determinations from
him till x22 Lenzites sepiaria Fr. Sept. 26 The only certain thing here is x10 Trogia crispa in the Handbook, formerly Cantharellus crispus Fr. Sept. 29 x1 Undetermined 2 Hypnum imponens - the black on it, if a fungus which I doubt, is
very imperfect. x3
A lichen old and poor. I have not looked farther at the Aecidium on
Calystegia. If you will send more I will try again. Piggotia astroidea is what we used to call Sphaeria ulmea Schw. and
I do not see why it is kept distinct from and also placed as a part of
Dothidea ulmi in Handbook. [Written on back margin:] The Uromyces on Euphorbia Dr. Curtis
considered U. apiculosa and I following him so reported it, but Cooke deems
it distinct and he is probably right. I have seen no Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Oct. 5 Vol. 10 (31) [A 306 & 307 - two sheets] [ Mr. Linden's Specimens from x1
Polyporus sanguineus (L.) Fr. x2
& x3 Polyporus limbatus Fr.? I am not quite satisfied that this
determination is correct. x4 & x9 Lenzites striata Fr. x5 Polyporus hirsutus v. Brasiliensis Fr. x6 Trametes hydnoides Fr. x7
Lentinus rigidulus B. & C.? Their description is very brief and I am not
quite sure. x8
Undetermined. The pores are as in No 5 but the upper surface differs. x10 Undetermined x11 Omitted 12 Undetermined 12 (bis) Peziza floccosa Schw. Oct. 1st specimen from Oct. 4th x1
Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev. x2 Polyporus vaporarius Fr. x3 Imprfect x9
Imperfect but the spots appear much like those of Septoria Nabali B. & C. x5 Uncertain x6
Macrosporium species undetermined. Can you spare more of this? 7 Lycogala epidendrum L. x8
Hypoxylon concentricum Grev. x4 Sporidesmium moriforme Pk. (25th Report) x10
Agaricus (Colybia) velutipes Curt. x11 Polyporus lacteus Fr. Oct. 5th x1
Massaria bufonia Tul. x2 Imperfect x3 Agaricus (Mycena) Corticola Schum I would be glad of more Cystopus cubicus Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [second sheet] Oct. 6 A. Tremella mesenterica Retz x1
Seems Corticium bicolor Pk. slightly different in color. x2
Nemaspora crocea Pers. Given in Handbook also as a form of other things. x3 Seems a form of Lecanora varia - a lichen x4
Microsphaera penicillata Lev. x5
Lycoperdon calvescns B. & C. according to Dr. Curtis. Hold it so
provisionally until x6 Guepinia Spathularia Fr. x7 Imperfect x*
Imperfect. x9
Stereum acerinum and some steile Hysterium. x10 Leucobryum vulgare Hampe [A moss] x11
Probably imperfect bark cells. Microsphaera Vaccinii Pk. is distinct fro M. Friesii v. Vaccinii C.
& P. and may be known at once by its very long appendages. Cooke says he
thinks it a good species. Received Oct. 10 - Vol. 10 (34) [A 303, 304 - two sheets] My Dear Sir, I trust you will excuse my delays in reporting on the specimens. I
am just now horribly overrun with correspondence and to save postage I prefer
to answer the accumulations of several days under cover of a single stamp
when I can. A Mr. Mundy has sent a specimens of
Botrychium Luneria. which he says he discovered near
Very truly yours Charles H. Peck P. S. Of. Oct. 13 3 The larger black dots are Patellaria indigotica C. & P. By scraping
the surface of the wood I find a few green or gonoid cells but the thing is
so miserably imperfect. I can not say whether they are intended to be lichen
or alga Oct. 14 x1
Stilbospora ovata Pers. These are the only ones I recognize. C. H. P. [second sheet] Oct. 7 x1
No fungus - Mostly the work of insects. x3
Erysiphe lamprocarpa Lev. x4 Macrosporium sp.
uncertain x5 No fungus x6
Imperfect I am quite sure the Chara
is C. foetida Braun. I do not know who in this country names these. I was
told that Dr. T. F. Allen was making them a special study and once sent him
some specimens to name but without success. Your specimens are badly broken
by the journey. --------------- Oct. 8 x1
Microsphaera Friesii var. Castanea C. & P. 2 Undetermined x3 A moss - probably young or male plants of Pogonatum brevicaule x4 Uncertain x5
Hydnum erinacens or H. coralloides, too little to show which. x6
Peziza cyathoidea Bull. Black dots not determined. x7
Not determined. x8
Not determined. x9
Diatrype brunnea C. & P. according to Cooke. When x10 Not determined x13 Hypocrea contorta (Schw.) x14 Xylaria Hypoxylon Fr. 15 Not determined x16
Not determined. ---------------------- x11
Dacrymyces deliquescens Duli. x12 Hypoxylon (young) ---------------------- x17 Undetermined x18 Imperfect x19 Helotium ctirinum Fr. x20 Nectria sterile &
uncertain x21 Undermined x22 Uncertain x23
& x24 Ag. (Pleurotus) porrigens P. x25 Imperfect x26 Cenangium seriatum Fr. x27 Undetermined x28
Polytrichum juniperinum. No fungus on it. x30 Dichaena faginea x31 Probably a fungus but sterile x32 Appaently young Stereum purpureum x29
Not determined. Oct. 12 x1
Undetermined. x2 Merulius lacrymans x3 Undetermined (Prob. a lichen) x4
Hypoxylon concentricum Grev. x5
Stilbum pelludicum Schrad. x6
I find nothing good here. x7 Marasmius subvenosus Pk. 23d Report x8 Undetermined x9
Polyporus incarnatus Fr. Can you spare more and do you remember what kind of
wood you find it on. x10
Phyllactinia guttata Lev. 11 Imperfect x12 Phytisma punctatum Fr. x13
Uncinula circinata C. & P. x14
Phyllactinia guttata Lev. x15
Phyllactinia guttata Lev. x16
Phyllactinia guttata Lev. x17
Infertile. Oct. 9 x1
No fruit and I get no clue to its character. 2 This Peziza or rather what I suppose to be the same I once sent to
Cooke with a figure. He has not yet decided on it. x3 Pogonatum brevicaule 4 Dicranum rufescens x5 Tremella sarcoides said to be a state of x6 Orthotrichum crispulum x7 Neckera pennata x8 Anomodon apiculatus x9 Frullania Eboracensis x10 Frullania Grayana x11 Hypnum repens x12 = 10 x13 Jungermannia curvifolia x15 Not determined 16 Chara foetida Braun Received Oct [overwritten] Vol. 10 (38) [A 299] [[ [[My Dear Sir, -no heading Oct. 15 I can make nothing good of any of them. Oct. 18 1 Scapania nemorosa (Hepatica) 11 Trichia rubiformis Pers. 12 Trichia clavata Pers. 13 Fissidens bryoides Hedw. 44 16 Xylaria corniformis 17 Helminthosporium n.sp. (I think) 21 Eutypa spinosa Tul. 22 Too far gone for determination. 23 Scorias spongiosa Schw. I am not sure that it is a good fungus. I
find it only on wood and leaves defiled by the secretions of wooly plant lice
[= wooly aphids?] 24 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. 25 Macrosporium et al. sp. incert. 26 Tubercularia nigricans 28 Hendersonia Robiniae West. Now deemed a form of Cucurbitaria
elongata Grev. 29 Polyporus sp. incert. 30 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. 31 & 33 Tubercularia vulglaris Tode. 26 Hypnum 37 Polyporus sp. incert. 40 Septoria I do not find it
described. 43 Tremella sarcoides Now
deemed a form of 45 Peziza sp. incert. 46 Cylindrothecium cladorrhizans 47 Lecythea Ruborum Lev. Now deemed a form of Phragmidium bulbosum 49 Carnpylopsis viridis S. & L. x52
Bactridium flavum Kze. Of the others some are sterile or imperfect things and some I am
unable to locate at present. P.S. I have looked through all my specimens of Rhododendron leaves
from Sullivan county for Pestalozzia Mariae-Wilsoni in vain, and I find none
on the leaves you sent me the second time, so that all I have is the very
little on the first leaf I examined. Is it not possible to find more? C. H. P. Received Oct. 24 Vol. 10 (44) [A 292] [[ [[My Dear Sir,
- no heading again - to save space?] Oct. 27th x1
Diatrype platystoma (Schw.) Can you spare some of this. x4
Looks to me more like Biatora chlorantha than B. rubella, but I find no
fertile asci and must leave it in doubt. x5 Polytrichum piliferum x7 Valsa leucostoma Fr. x9 Climacium Americanum As you suppose x10 Scorias spongiosa (Schw.) I must say I see no essential difference between this and No. 223 [=?23 or 22?] Oct. 18th. Possibly there may have been some mistake in the sending
of the specimens so I return a part of the contents of No. 23 that you may
compare again. This production is so peculiar that I have no doubt of the
correctness of the determination, still I never found it, as Schweinitz says,
in masses two feet in diameter, nor with spores that seem to me exactly to
meet the description of Fries, and now that it is in question I think I must
try to get Cookes opinion on it. Fries says it
always grows near beech trees. I have only found it under or near or on beech
and alder trees where there were or had been wooly plant lice, the fungus
growing on substances living or dead or even on the ground, defiled by their
secretions. These sometimes drop from a considerable height and might not be
noticed, also the fungus may remain long after the lice have disappeared from
the trees above. Strange as this fact may appear I believe it will always be
found by careful observation to hold good, yet
neither Schweinitz nor Fries speak of it. x11 Hypnum tamariscinum x13
Sphaeria leucoplaca B. & R. x14
Bovista plumbea Pers. Oct. 25 The only ones I make out are 1 Barbula unguiculata Hedw. x7
Melampsora populina Lev. Black and yellow forms of one thing. Oct. 24 x1
Coryneum clavaesporum Pk. x2
Diatrype brunnea C. & P. (If not D. obesa B. & C.) 3 Not found x4 Melampsora salicina Lev. (Winter state) Oct. 23 x1
Hendersonia Robiniae West. Said to be a form of Cucurbitaria elongata x2 = 2 of Oct. 24 x3 Not determined x4 Exidia glandulosa Fr. Oct. 21 1 Undetermined x2 Phyllactinia guttata Lev. with abundant mycelium x3
Tubercularia. Received Oct. 31 Vol. 10 (45) [A 291] My Dear Sir, All the specimens of Lejeunia hamatifolia and Pannaria crassophylla
are mounted in the State Herbarium. I send the others you ask for and a few
things at hand. Hypnum Peckii has only been found sterile. I looked for it this
summer but found it only sparingly and in such surroundings that I begin to
fear it will prove to be an extremely attenuated form of Hypnum uncinatum. Nectria incurvata about whose habitat there was some doubt when
reported, does occur on Celastrus scandens. You will remember this is what
Dr. C. considered N. appendiculata n. sp. Fortunately its identity was discovered
before it was published. I put the Arceuthobium parasite for the present in the genus
Sphaeria though as they are now splitting that genus I am not sure it will
hold a good Sphaeria. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Nov. 1 Vol. 10 (50) [A 285] My Dear Sir, Specimens of Nov. 4 1 I see no sac under the peridium and can not say positively whether
it is Geaster saccatus or not. 2 Seems more like Tremella mesenterica. x3
Has the spores of Sphaeria capillifera Curr. but I
see no pale subiculum. It might be referred to that species with a query. x4 Uncertain x5
Polyporus Salviae B. & C. Have you some to spare. New to us. x6 Uncertain x7 Uncertain x8 Polyporus hirsutus Fr. x9
Not determined. 10, 11, x17 Oidium fulvum Lk. x12
Sphaeria ? The perithecia are
deeply seated. I do not feel at home among the Sphaeria, there are so many
species and so closely related that they
need special study. x13 Uncertain (Badly stuck up with paper) x14
Nothing fungusy. x15
& x16 Near Excipule, but without hairs and with brown spores. I know of
no genus for it. Perhaps an imperfect Peziza. 18 Another undetermined Sphaeria. x19 Clavaria mucida (forked variety) x20
Hypoxylon atropurpureum as to two of the specimens. The one partly covered
with bark is immature and uncertain. x21 Imperfect x22 Not determined x23
Stereum Curtisii Berk. x24
Imperfect. x25
Cladosporium herbarum. I find no Depazea on the Aesculus leaves Only spots. I am glad again. I have found among my Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Nov. 6 Vol. 10 (56) [A 279 - on a tiny post office postcard bought for one
penny addressed simply "Hon. G. W. Clinton, [[ [[My Dear Sir, - no heading Nov. 6 1 & 2 are lichens 3 Is a lichenose crust interspersed by some imperfect Hypoxylon. I am unable to determine with certainty any of
the remaining numbers. Nov. 7 1 Cladosporium Typhae Schw. 2 No fruit 3 Polyporus versicolor Fr. 4 Daedalea unicolor Fr. 5 Lenzites (spec, incert.) 6 Polyporus hirsutus Fr. 7 Imperfect 8 Trogia crispa Fr. in Handbook = Cantharellus crispus Fr.
(formerly) 9 Imperfect 10 & 11 Irpex Tulipiferae Schw. 12 & 13 Hypoxylon fuscum Fr. x14
Imperfect. 15 Seems a variety of Polyporus scutellatus Schw. 16 Exidia glandulosa Fr. Charles H. Peck 11 Nov. 6 is probably a form of Guepinia spathularia. Received Nov. 11 Vol. 10 (61) [A 273] My Dear Sir, Of Nov. 11 I make out x3
Physcia obscura var. erythrocardia - the red belonging to the lichen. x15
Frullania Eboracensis Lehm. 8 Merulius tremellosus Schrad. x14
Cladosporium Herbarum Tode the dark mold.
Penicillium crustaceum Fr. the green mold. Hypomyces aurantia Tul.
(Sphaeria aurantia Pers.) the orange colored fungus.
There are some slight discrepancies between the specimens and the published
descriptions, but still I think they ought to be referred to this place. It
is a fine addition to our fungi and I hope you have a goodly quantity of it. x16
Trogia crispa Fr. (formerly Cantharellus crispus) I inclose good specimens of
this and Panus stypticus which will I think illustrate the two species so
that you will easily separate them. The crisp lamellae of the former of a
pallid or greenish color characterize the species. I think you may as well give a name to the Aecidium on Calystegia
leaves, though I am not able to find any definite characters to separate it
from Ae. Compositarum. Its habitat might be taken as an indication that they
exist even if not seen in the dry specimen. I was in the same fix in regard
to Gerard's Aecidium Nesaeae. I could not separate it from Ae. Sambuvis
except by its habitat, but I see he has published it as distinct. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Nov. 15 Vol. 10 (62) [A 272] My Dear Sir, The inclosed is the only Bahian that I will venture to name. Two of
the others seem to be Hypoxyla but I do not find either in fruit. Certainly I shall be pleased to aid you all I can in perfecting your
list of fungi. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Nov. 17 [The reference to
“your list of fungi” pertains to the future publication by the Buffalo
Society of Natural Sciences after Vol. 10 (66) [A 267 - a tiny post office postcard worth one penny] [same address as above] My Dear Sir, Thanks for Hypomyces aurantius. No.1
Peziza species uncertain as it is without
fruit. 2 Uncinula spiralis B. & C. = U. Americana Howe. I scarcely know
which name should take precedence. Dr. Howe published the first description,
but 3 Cladosporium epiphyllum Nees. No 1 is a good illustration of the theory of similarity of asci and
paraphyses, or the notion that the latter are an imperfect or undeveloped
state of the former. In the specimens the asci are very rare but the
paraphyses very abundant, as if the plant had grown under unfavorable
conditions and failed to develop its asci. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Nov. 18 Vol. 10 (74) [A 260 - a My Dear Sir, I have just procured Dr. Wood's "Contribution to Fresh Water
Algae" and from it conclude that the red alga on ground in Conservatory
which you sent me long, long ago is "Porphrydium cruentum (Ag.)
Naeg." Slow but sure and better late than never are old proverbs
applicable to this case. The description of "Phoma Syringae B. & C." which I
expected in the Dec. number of Grevillea is not there. The "great many other forms which can scarcely be
characterised" I suppose covers this. C. H. P. Received Dec. 17 Vol. 10 (76) [A 258 - a My Dear Sir, Of Dec. 17th -1 Polyactis apparently undescribed.
Name and send more if possible -2 Cladosporium species
uncertain -5 Sphaeropsis guercina Pk. 25 Rep. p. 86 -6 Exidia recisa Fr. Of the others I can make nothing. C. H. P. Received Dec. 22 [Though he lost
his budget for postage it is amazing how self reliant these people seem to be
- writing tinier and tinier and using a penny postcard.] Vol. 10 (79) [A 255 - full sheet torn from a side-bound notebook] My Dear Sir, Of Dec. 22d 1 & 2 are imperfect and uncertain. 3, 4 & 5 forms of Cladosporium Herbarum Lk. 6 Peziza Persoonii Moug. I fear I was too hasty in pronouncing the Polyactis a new species.
The specimens first put under the microscope seemed to have the flocci nodose
and led me into the belief of its novelty but further exmaination fails to
sustain this character and I am forced to believe it is only Polyactis
fascicularis Cd. in Handbook; Polyactis fasciculata Cd. in Berkleys Outlines
& Cooke's Micr. Molds. Which is really Corda's name is a question. I am not aware that Mr. Frost has published any descriptions of
Boleti. He has however sent me Manuscript descriptions of most of the species
mentioned in your list and specimens of some. I doubt if I can do much with
the specimens but will do all I can if you are disposed to send them on. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton Received Dec. 26 |
|
|