|
Correspondence of Charles Peck and G. W. Clinton March 7, 2011 |
|
The
Correspondence of Charles
Peck (1833-1917) and George
William Clinton (1807 1885) 1877-1879 Vol. 11 (157) [J 101] My Dear Sir, I have revised the list of 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
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 Vol. 11 (165) [J 90 - on new stationary printed "New York State
Museum of Natural History"] 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 Vol. 11 (168) [J 87 - back to the old notebook paper] 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] 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 Received Vol. 11 (180) [J 75] 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 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Judge G. W. Clinton [Received, no note] Vol. 11 (217) [J 31] 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 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] 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 " 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 Desm. Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received, no note] - Vol. 12 (10) [K 119 - on stationary] 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 has been using:] 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] 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 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 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 [Received, no note. Vol. 12 (62) [K 66] 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] 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 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 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] 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 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. Vol. 12 (69) [K 59] [U. S. postal card, one cent postage. delivery.] Where shall I place Cronartium? [= 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 Vol. 12 (76) [K 52] 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] 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 "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 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 Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received Vol. 12 (82) [K 46 - a [1878] [In [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, Very truly yours Charles H. Peck [Received, no note. Addressed by Postmark Dec 20.] Vol. 12 (90) [K 34, 35, 36, 37] 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 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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
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 Armeniacus. 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. A 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] 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] My Dear Sir, The moss from I have not the Memoirs of the Very truly yours Charles H. Peck Received - no note] [The fungi from Vol. 12 (109) [K 14 - a 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] 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 |
|
|