486 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 Rogers, in addition, concluded: "Ergo, Cristella = Sebacina."'0 Patouillard published, first, a new generic name, Cristella, for a new taxon accompanied by a description drawn up from the specimens he actually studied; among these the type specimen of Merisma cristatum Pers. was not represented. Secondly, he published a new combination ("Crist, cristata") for an 'old' species, basinym, Merisma cristatum Pers.6; this recombination has to be treated as a synonym of Persoon's name given to the species of Sebacina. These two simple and easily extricable facts would seem a very slender basis for confusion. EXAMPLE 3.—Following the same unsupportable line of reasoning, Rogers identified the species he selected as the type of Soppittiella Mass. (Brit. Fung. Fl. 1: 106. 1892) not according to what Massee understood by that name, but what he, Rogers, understood by it, and so Soppittiella became to him another synonym of Sebacina Tul. The fungus described and illustrated by Massee as Soppittiella cris- tata Mass. ("Thelephora cristata, Fr.") is presumably also the same as Corticium fastidiosum (Cristella cristata sensu Pat.), although some allowances for errors in his description should be made: for instance, the spores are not "pale vinous." The generic diagnosis of Soppittiella does not agree well with Massee's description of this selected type. It states that the fruit-body is "soft, fleshy, and subgelatinous when growing, collapsing when dry" and (in the general discussion) "soft, fleshy, and subgelatinous when moist." On the other hand, Massee's accounts of the genus and the species he attributed to it are so confused, inaccurate, and even evidently erroneous that the proper selection of a different species agreeing more closely with the generic description would be a complicated matter with a subjective and debatable result. I, therefore, wholeheartedly support Rogers' choice of the indicated species, which makes, to me, Sop- pittiella a later synonym of Cristella, but not of Sebacina as was concluded by him! "He proceeds to draw attention to the later name Phlebiella P. Karst. which he considers the correct one for the genus in an emended circumscription. There are signs that some other mycologists are inclined to accept this view; compare H. S. Jackson (in Canad. J. Res. 26 C: 144, 155. 1948) and John Eriksson [in Symb. bot. upsal. 10 (5): 6. 1950]. This unexpected development induced the present note. SRather than Thelephora cristata (Pers.) ex Fr. Whether or not the new recom- bination Cristella cristata was validly published is again a different matter. R E I N W A R D T I A Published by Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia Volume 1, Part 4, pp. 487-500 (1952) NOTES ON MALESIAN FUNGI—II* On the genera Auricularia, Hirneola, and Laschia M. A. D O N K * * SUMMARY 1. After discussing the outer characters of the three genera Auricularia Bull, ex Merat, Hirneola Fr. (1848), and Laschia Fr., now often combined into a single genus, the author concludes that there is every reason to follow Bresadola and to keep Auricularia and Hirneola apart as distinct genera, and to enter Laschia into Hirneola. 2. It is pointed out that in Hirneola the hymenophore is not invariably inferior. 3. The author once more discusses the desirability of conserving the name Hirneola Fr. 1848. He withdraws his previous proposal for conservation of Auricularia Bull, ex Brongn. 1824. 4. The new combination Hirneola nigricans (Sw. ex Fr.) Donk is proposed. 5. It is possible that the correct name for the Judas' ear is Hirneola auricula (L. ex Mexat) H. Karst. HISTORICAL OUTLINE.—The three auriculariaceous genera Auricularia Bull, [ex Merat 1821], Laschia Fr., and Hirneola Fr. (1848), kept apart by Fries, are now often combined into a single genus under the name of Auricularia. When introduced, the earliest of these three names, Auri- cularia, covered various fungi now considered not closely related, among which Auricularia mesenterica (Dicks, ex Fr.) Fr. (as Au. tremelloides Bull.) and Stereum hirsutum (Willd. ex Fr.) S. F. Gray (as Au. reflexa Bull.) were the most noteworthy representatives. Bulliaird did not include Tremella auricula L. = T. auricula-judae Bull. = Hirneola auricula (L. ex Merat) H. Karst. (see p. 499), the well-known Judas' ear. In fact there was not much difference between Auricularia Bull, and Thelephora Ehrh. as the latter genus was emended by Persoon. Certain authors even replaced the name Thelephora by Auricularia, retaining the Persoonian genus unaltered (Merat, see p. 498). The first to combine Au. mesenterica and H. auricula into one genus, exclusive of other species (like Stereum hirsutum), was Link (1809), who was followed by a respectable line of mycologists such as Persoon, Duby, Secretan, Link himself, and others. This genus, too, was called Auricularia; *The first part appeared in Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenzorg III 17: 473-482 1948 **Keeper of Herbarium Bogoriense, Kebun Raya Indonesia. 487 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 it has been interpreted as an emendation of Auricularia Bull, or as a new genus with a new (though homonymous) name. Fries on the other hand was not willing to follow Link's course. From the first he considered the two elements of Link's genus as non-related. For a long time he kept H. auricula1 and some tropical species in Exidia Fr., but when he learned more about these tropical species he instituted for them a special genus Hirneola Fr.2 in 'Tremellinei'; he then supposed that it should also include the true Judas' ear.8 At first Fries did not know what to do with the other element of Link's genus, Au. mesenterica. After having placed it with doubt in Phlebia Fr., he soon afterwards transferred it to an other special genus for which he took- up the name Auricularia Bull.4 (fig. 1) ; he included this genus in 'Thelephorei,' thus indicating that he considered it funda- mentally different from Hirneola. Due to Fries' enormous authority the names Auricularia and Hirneola became fixed in these applications for a long period and still survive. The genus Laschia Fr.5 (fig. 2) was compared by its author at first with sessile Merulius although he included it in 'Tremellinei' (1830), but Fries afterwards placed it in 'Polyporei' next to Favolus (Summ. veg. Scand. 325. 1849) ; he never compared it with Hirneola. It is characterized by its strongly gelatinous substance and by the alveolate-merulioid nymenophore. Subsequent authors (following Montagne) have made Laschia very heterogeneous; in the following discussion only the restricted, original, sense is considered. However, when it was fully appreciated that Auricularia and Hir- neola possess transversally septate basidia and do not really belong to different orders (families) as Fries thought, the scale turned and Patouil- iFries confused this species with one of Exidia; compare Donk (in Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenz. I l l 17: 161-162. 1941). Recently the first preserved collection on record of the Judas' ear was made in Sweden; compare Lundell (in Lundell & Nannfeldt, Fung. exs. suec. [15]: 16 no. 1426. 1947). 2Hirneola Fr. 1848, not Hirneola Fr. 1825 which is now called Mycobonia Pat. 3The actual transfer to Hirneola was effected by Berkeley in 1860, as H. auricula- judae (Bull.) Berk. 4Fries (1825) had used the name Auricularia Bull, before in quite a different circumscription, corresponding with what he later on called Stereum, but exclusive of Hymenochaete Lev. The appearance of "Auricularia" as an example of Tremellinae in Fries' "Conspectus ordinum" of 1821 (Syst. mycol. 1: 2), I rather interpret as the precursor of Exidia Fr., the latter name published in 1822 [Fries, Syst. mycol. 2 (1) : 220]. This would mean that Fries originally intended to accept Auricularia [sensu] Link with Au. auricula as the type species, emended to what he called Exidia the next year; in 1825 he emended Auricularia Bull, with Stereum hirsutum^ as the type species; and in 1835, finally, he settled down on Auricularia Bull, with Au. mesenterica as the type species. ^Laschia Fr. (in Linnaea 5: 533. 1830), not Laschia Jungn. 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—II 489 lard (Hym. d'Eur. 159. 1887) threw the two genera together under the name of Auricularia. After Patouillard (1887) had found out that Laschia Fr., too, had the same kind of basidia, that genus followed Hirneola and was also included in Auricularia.0 This treatment received considerable support, for instance from Brefeld, Lindau, and Lloyd (1918), while some now living mycologists look at any other course with ill disguised contempt. All the same, Fries' views in this respect were kept alive by a number of mycologists, for instance by Saccardo (who kept the heterogeneous genus Laschia intact) and by Bressadola, who maintained Auricularia and Hirneola as distinct genera, but included Laschia Fr. in Hirneola,. This disposition has been followed by Killermann, and I, too, believe that it is preferable to the Patouillardian course. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AURICULARIA AND HIRNEOLA.—Fries (Hym. europ. 1874) distinguished between Auricularia and Hirneola as follows:— Auricularia (Thelephorei).—Hymenium definite inferum, remote et vage costato-plicatum, udum tumens gelatinoso-tremulum, siccum collabens. Habitus exacte Sterei. Genus inter Thelephoreos et Tremellinos medium, sed meo sensu illis proxime affine, quum siccum a Stereo vix discerni possit et pileo coriaceo a Tremellis recedat. Hirneola (Tremellinei).—Fungi cartilagineo-gelatinosi, udi mollis, tremuli sed nulla gelatina distendi; excipulum cupuliforme, siccum coriaceo-corneum, humec- tatum reviviscens, sed vix tumescens. Callus hymeninus superus, discoideus, discolor et diutius maceratus ab exipulo integer solubilis. Sporophora gelatina haud involuta; sporis oblongis, curvatis. Genus eximium, tarn ab Auricularia, quam Exidia clare distinctum. One of the distinctions Fries emphasized was the position of the hymenophore, which was supposed to be inferior in Auricularia and superior in Hirneola. This is only partly correct: in certain species of Hirneola the hymenium may well be directed downwards, although in others it may often be directed upwards. This distinction is of little generic value and may be discarded as of primary importance in the following discussion. Yet it seems useful to point out that a categorical statement to the effect that in Hirneola the hymenium is undoubtedly inferior is certainly incorrect, as is known to many mycologists with field-experience in the Asiatic tropics. Such statements were made by Lloyd (1918: 784) and by G. W. Martin:— . "Because of the gelatinous texture of these fungi [Hirneola], the hymenium may at times be forced into a more or less superior position by the swelling of the substance, particularly when the basidiocarps are densely clustered, but morphologically it is nearly always inferior. The few well-authenticated exceptions may reasonably be 0Patouillard continued to use the name Laschia Fr. for homobasidious fungi. 490 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 explained on the basis of a disturbance of the substratum after the fructifications had started to develop."—G. W. Martin (1943: 80). D. P. Rogers (in Farlowia 3: 449. 1949) is even still more positive:— "As Martin . . . and others have pointed out, and as anyone situated where auric- ularias occur can confirm, this upside-down auriculariaceous genus [Hirneola] is a myth." I have been living for many years in a part of the world where several species of Hirneola are common and I have been in the position to pay some attention to this question. Premising that I do not want to stress the position of the hymenium as a first-rate generic feature, I should like to point out the incorrectness of this sweeping formulation. There are forms of Hirneola which have rather the superior hymenophore, while there are also forms (those with typically merulioid hymenophore, Laschia) that have the strictly inferior one, whereas still others are almost indif- ferent in this respect. I prefer to~ let somebody else speak. The witness to be quoted is Petch, who acquired an enormous field-knowledge in Ceylon. "The habit of the two species also differs; in [H.] polytricha.,1 1 the fungus frequently, one might almost say usually, grows with the hymenial surface directed upwards, though when growing in clusters on dead stumps, it is directed upwards or downwards or laterally indifferently; but [AU.] tremellosat8l always projects horizontally from the substratum, with the concave hymenial surface directed down-, wards."—Petch (1910: 419). Further, Burt (1921: 390-391), when describing Au. rosea Burt9 which he could study for two months in the Missouri Botanical Garden where it was kept growing on a log, remarked that the fruit-bodies were either erect or pendant. Having disposed of the position of the hymenophore, Rogers proceeds to declare that the genus Hirneola is worthless and taxonomically super- fluous. I do not grudge him this opinion, but would certainly not subscribe to it because the fungi in question speak a different language, difficult to misunderstand, I believe. What Fries really emphasized, and what Martin and Rogers and many other mycologists ignore, is the resemblance of Auricularia to Stereum (more in particular to S. purpureum, Fries said), and of Hirneola to Exidia, some forms of the latter genus so strikingly resembling the common Judas' ear that this similarity has been repeatedly commented 352). 7 Hirneola nigricans of the present paper. sRather Hirneola affinis (Jungh.) Bres. This is a member of Laschia Fr. 9'Auricularia [= Hirneola] fuscosuceinea (Mont.) Farl. according to Lowy (1951a: 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—It 491 upon and even led Fries to confuse an exidia with it. That the basidia in both Auricularia and Hirneola are alike is no reason to reject a priori the other, external, features as unimportant. It is worth while, before making up one's mind, to analyse some of the characters that reminded Fries of Stereum in the case of Auricularia, and of Exidia in the case of Hirneola. The differences in substance, often unduly stressed, may be left out of account. (i) In both genera the fruit-bodies are peziza- or cyphella-like in origin, i.e. only attached by a central abhymenial point. But in Auricularia they become soon either wholly adpressed to the substratum (and loosely connected with it, 'resupinate'), or ef f used-ref lexed, or even almost wholly laterally 'sessile,' depending on their position and that of the substratum— just as in typical species of Stereum,10 which show exactly the same kind of development. In Hirneola, however, there is not the slightest tendency of the fruit-bodies to become adpressed ('resupinate') in the sense of Stereum and they more and more develop the cup- or ear-like or conchate shape so characteristic for them; they retain this shape to old age, like some of the larger exidias. (ii) In Auricularia neighbouring fruit-bodies become confluent over often extensive areas. In the reflexed portions this unification may be as perfect as in the resupinate parts. This is exactly what we see so often in Stereum. In Hirneola there is no tendency to become confluent, although numerous fruit-bodies may be densely clustered. This reminds one of certain of the larger species of Exidia. (iii) The upper surface of the reflexed portions and the surface adpressed to the substratum in Auricularia are distinctly zonate as in the typical species of Stereum. In Hirneola all indications of zonation of the sterile surface are lacking, as in Exidia. (iv) In Auricularia the reflexed portions grow strictly horizontal in the same manner as they do in typical species of Stereum. In Hirneola the direction of the fruit-bodies often depends on their accidental position in relation to the substratum and in some species there is no well-marked tendency to adjust the hymenophore horizontally downwards; on the con- trary, besides species that strictly do so, there are others that show a pronounced inclination towards the upwards directed hymenophore. Such a lack of a fixed rule within the genus as a whole is to be found, too, in Exidia, and is worthy of some note since in Auricularia the rule of the inferior hymenophore in the reflexed portions is strictly observed. 10I take Stereum in a much restricted sense, its main parts being Bourdot & Galzin's .sections Luteola and Cruentata. 492 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 The hymenophore in Auricularia (fig. 1) is 'smooth'; the few, rather pronounced ribs that may be present in herbarium specimens are a result of desiccation. In Hirneola sensu stricto the hymenophore is usually smooth, too; some ribs are rather folds of the wall of the fruit-body (with corresponding depressions at the outside) ; a more complicated venation FIG. 1. Auricularia ornata Pers.: fruit-bodies seem from below and reflexed portions seen from above, X 0.5. — After specimens from Java. or even merulioid condition may appear as a result of vigorous growth, but is, first, not a specific character, and, secondly, disappears when the fruit-bodies are dried, except for a few prominent ridges that may remain. In Laschia (here included provisionally in Hirneola) the strongly reticu- 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—II 493 lately venose condition of the hymenophore is structural and well preserved in dried fruit-bodies. For all these reasons, I would say that Fries was quite correct in keeping the two ge"nera apart and in comparing Auricularia with Stereum, and Hirneola with Exidia. Such an comparison is fully justified, facilitates characterisation of the genera, and recognition of their distinguishing features. Both have the same kind of transversally septate basidia which shows them to belong to one family (Auriculariaceae), rather than to two as Fries supposed, but this can hardly be a reason, I believe, to com- bine the two, so different in other respects. The consequences would be the incorporation of still more genera, like Achroomyces Bonord., Mylit- topsis Pat., and, perhaps, the rest of the family. In some tribes of agarics and in Dacrymycetaceae, for instance, genera are recognized on the basis of less salient features! This conclusion is not new. Bresadola already vented his exasperation in this regard:— "We admit . . . the g-enus Hirneola as distinct from Auricularia, because, when the characters of the shape of the fruit-bodies are taken into consideration, the species of Hirneola are certainly not at home in the genus Auricularia. This latter genus has entirely the appearance of the caps as it occurs in Stereum; in addition the medial layer is not as soft and the hairy indument is differently disposed, viz. in concentrical zones. "By the microscopical features affinities have become clearer to us, so that species, which formerly were not brought into connection which each other, are now classed systematically on their natural place, but this is no reason to neglect the external features, for these, too, may help to acquire a good insight into the objects of nature and to distinguish between related species and genera. Let us, therefore, prevent the extremes from meeting. The earlier authors neglected the microscopical features; the later ones, to the contrary, do not only neglect the external features, but even hold them in contempt. Does this mean progress in science?"— Bresadola (in Hedwigia 35: 291. 1896; translated from the Latin). THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HIRNEOLA AND LASCHIA.—Patouillard recog- nized that Laschia has auriculariaceous basidia and he merged it, like Hirneola,. with Auricularia. As to the features exposed above, Laschia agrees with Hirneola rather than with Auricularia. In their most typical development Laschia and Hirneola look very different indeed; compare, for instance, Hirneola nigricans (Sw. ex Fr.) Donk with H. (Laschia) affinis (Jungh.) Bres. With its typical hymenial configuration, Laschia must have seemed well worth generic separation to Fries. Genera are, even now, often based on less telling characters. However, the generic limits between Hirneola and Laschia are some- what effaced by species intermediate in certain respects, for instance, 494 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—// 495 some forms in the tropics (still difficult to assign to their proper species) which, when fresh and moist (in extremely wet weather), look like Laschia, with strongly alveolate hymenophore, but dry up like Hirneola, with smooth hymenophore, at most showing some stellately radiating folds ('Auricularia stellata Lloyd'). This has induced me to follow Bresadola and combine Laschia with Hirneola for the present, though I may retain sectional status for Laschia, or even restore it to generic rank, in the future. The main difference between Hirneola sensu stricto and Laschia is to be found, if only the outer characters are taken into consideration, in the hymenophore, in Laschia "furnished with distinct ribs which are just as much a constant structural feature as the gills of an agaric; and there are no corresponding depressions on the upper surface"—Petch (1910: 419, for "A. tremellosa"). In Hirneola sensu stricto any approach to this reticulate-alveolar configuration is merely an expression of a more vigorous growth than is usual. Upon drying this extreme type of reticula- tion disappears again, while in Laschia it remains perfectly preserved after drying. The fruit-bodies in Laschia are always strictly horizontal with inferior hymenophore. "Hymenium definite terram spectat," Fries (Novae Symb. mycol. 89. 1851) already remarked, and he added "nine ad Tremellinos, structura proximos, non referatur." Certain authors even went much further: they denied specific status to the species of Laschia and considered them extreme variations of H. auricula. Exponents of this view were A. Moller (1895) and Holtermann (1898) ; both could point to field-knowledge in the tropics, the first in South America and the second in Asia (Ceylon, Java). Moller considered L. delicata Fr. (the type species of Laschia) merely a form of H. auricula,11 "ihre hochst entwickelte Form." Holtermann (whose observations and cultural experiments are often unreliable, if not faked) even claimed that L. tremellosa and L. velutina, as well as "A. purpurascens" (= H. nigri- cans) and other species all passed into each other without a break and were merely extreme variations of H. auricula.12 Such views were opposed by Bresadola (I.e.) ; he asserted that L. delicata was decidedly a good species. Petch came to a similar conclusion 11M611er and Holtermann spoke of Au. auricula-judae, but they dealt with other species of Hirneola. a2Holtermann said that Fries reduced L. delicata to a synonym of L. tremellosa. The reverse is true. Holtermann alternated these names by the erroneous forms 'A. delieiosa' and 'A. tremulosa.' "Auricularia polytricha Mont." [Au. polytricha (Mont.) Sacc] Holtermann called "A. purpurascens" in the next pages of his treatise. This is a new combination. 'Auricularia Auricula Judae' he also called 'A.Judae'; 'Auricularia' was also written 'Auricula.' The other species Holtermann included are "Auricularia porphyrea (Lev.) Fr., A.pellucida (Jungh.) Fr. und viele andere." FIG. 2. Hirneola (Laschia) affinis (Jungh.) Bres.: fruit-bodies showing lower and upper surface, x 0.75. — After spec- imens from Java. 4 9 6 • R B I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 as to the situation in Ceylon. It appears from his discussion that he did not come across H. auricula and some other allied species, but saw plenty of H. nigricans (which he called H. polytricha). The fungus he identified with Au. delicata is the one I call H. affinis (Jungh.) Bres. for the time being. Lloyd (1918), too, kept Au. delicata apart from what he called Au. auricula-judae and Au. moellerii Lloyd (which was to him merely a form with strongly reticulate hymenophore of Au. auricula-judae = H. auricula). To me the Samoan fungus he called Au. delicata is again H. af finis. In Java, where H. af finis and H. nigricans as well as other species occur abundantly, I never had any reason to doubt that H. af finis is a good species, although specimens of what I believe to be another species developing under extremely moist conditions may be baffling—only when collected fresh.12-13 The lumping of the species formerly referred to Laschia as forms of species of Hirneola sensu stricto is, in my opinion, unwarranted. STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES.—An interesting preliminary report on the internal structure of the fruit-bodies was recently published by Lowy (1951a). This author retains the broadly conceived genus Auricularia. His first key character is the absence or presence of a distinct medullary layer through the context. Since he published only a key and not yet a full treatment of the species he recognizes (nine) we must postpone a discussion of this matter. All the same it looks as if his investigations will furnish some support for differentiation between Hirneola, Laschia, and Auricularia on characters of internal structure. The following is an extract from his key to the species; the specific names are replaced by generic names. 1- Context with a distinctly differentiated medullary layer. Hirneola (except H. auricula) 1. Context without a distinctly differentiated medullary layer. 2. Context composed of a loose reticulum of hyphae whose elements are clearly distinguishable and not arranged in discrete parallel bands. Laschia (delicata) 13When cooked in side-dishes the several species are always easily distinguish- able. "Several authors have lumped H. delicata and H. af finis, but Bressadola kept the two apart. I do not know the typical Laschia delicata described from the American tropics, yet from the descriptions and figures consulted I feel that it would be premature to combine them without renewed comparative study. It would seem that the Javan plants, belonging to a species common throughout the Asiatic tropics (and judging from Lloyd's photograph, on Samoa, too), is paler and has decidedly thicker fruit-bodies and even, perhaps, a still more typically merulioid hymenophore. For this fungus, H. af finis is a certain name, which I prefer until the identity with H. delicata will be established beyond doubt. Is the true H. delicata possibly the same as Au. moellerii? 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—// 497 2. Context always more compact, with hyphae frequently parallel; medulla incon- spicuous or lacking or weakly differentiated. Auricularia H. auricula It would be interesting to investigate systematically the possible cor- relation between the presence of a well developed medullary layer and the separability of the hymenophore from the rest of the fruit-body, a feature so strongly emphasized by Fries when he published the genus Hirneola:— "Fungus . . . e duabus membranis quasi compaginatus, quarum exterior sistit excipulum, interior callum hymenium. . . . Callus hymeninus superus, discoideus, excipulo discolor et maceratum ab eodem separabile! . . . "—Fries (18^8: 144). THE CORRECT GENERIC NAMES.—It was pointed out elsewhere (Donk in Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenz. Ill 17: 170, 173. 1941; 194-9) that mycologists, who follow the "International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature" as closely as possible, and who want to distinguish between the two genera, Auricu- laria and Hirneola (inclusive of Laschia), are in need of the name Auricu- laria with Au. mesenterica as the type species, and of Hirneola Fr. 1848 conserved "against Laschia Fr. 1830 and Hirneola Fr. 1825 (the latter covering a quite different, homobasidious, genus, now called Mycobonia Pat.). Otherwise Hirneola (1848) would have to be called Laschia, a name already confusingly applied, and Hirneola (1825) would have to be taken up for Mycobonia. Rogers (in Farlowia 3: 449, 1949) was against this proposal, first, because he considered Hirneola Fr. 1848 a mere application of Hirneola Fr. 1825,15 and, secondly,—mind, this was in a nomenclatural discussion!—because he considered Hirneola "taxonomically superfluous." It may be so to him, but I hope sufficiently to have explained my reasons why I cannot agree and why there are mycologists who prefer the continued use of these tradional genera and names. I trust that other mycologists sharing Rogers' taxonomical view will be more broad minded and will not hinder their colleagues who adhere to a different taxonomical view and at the same time detest nomenclatural disturbances of the kind indicated. They are asked to extend their help in maintaining the name Hirneola for the genus currently so called. The proposal (Donk, 1949) for conservation of the name Auricularia, with Au. mesenterica as the type species, became superfluous when Rogers (in Mycologia 43: 376-378. 1951) drew attention to a booklet by Merat (Nouv. Fl. Paris, 2e Ed. 1821) ; Lowy (1951b) discussed its bearing on Auricularia. Merat adhered to Auricularia Bull, in a broad sense and 15Rogers had to withdraw his opinion that; legally, misapplications cannot be conserved, although he is still opposed to this kind of procedure. Even if Hirneola 1848 were a misapplication of Hirneola 1825, there is nothing in the Rules to oppose its conservation; several misapplications have already been conserved. 498 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 with the exclusion of Hirneola auricula.16 His genus is heterogeneous, but if it would be conceded that the explicit mentioning of "I'Auricularia mesenteriformis de Link." (= Au. mesenterica) as the type species of Auricularia by Brongniart (in Diet. Sci. nat. 33: 577) in 1824, is accept- able as a valid typication of Auricularia Bull, ex Merat (neither Bulliard nor, of course, Merat were cited), this would save the name in the sense striven after in my proposal. This would be the first typification (we know of) and prior to Fries' restriction of Bulliard's generic name to Stereum in 1825 (Syst. Orb. veg. 82) ! Merat's publication of the name Auricularia Bull, is prior to the first re-publications of Auricularia [sensu] Link 1809 by Persoon and Brongniart, both in 1822, which should be considered as only correctly typifiable by H. auricula,11 reason why the proposal was moved. Trusting that the conclusions just outlined will appear acceptable I herewith withdraw the proposal. ON THE CORRECT NAMES OF SOME SPECIES OF HIRNEOLA.—Anticipating the conservation of Hirneola Fr. (1848), the correct name of the well- known H. polytricha would appear to be: Hirneola nigricans (Sw. ex Fr.) Donk, comb. nov. Peziza nigrescens Sw., Nov. Gen. Sp. PL (Prod.) 150. 1788 (devalidated name). — Auricularia nigrescens (Sw.) ex Farl., Bibl. Index 1: 308. 1905 (validly published?). — Peziza nigricans Sw., Fl. Ind. occ. 3: 1938. 1806 (devalidated name). — Peziza nigricans Sw. ex Fr., Syst. mycol. 2 (1): 81. 1822 [as "P. nigricans (Swartzii)"]. — " Pleziza] • niffra Swartz": Fr., Syst. mycol. 2 (1): 81. 1822 (as a synonym).— Hirneola nigra Fr. in K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 1848: 147. — Auricula nigra (Fr.) O.K., Rev. Gen. PI. 2: 844. 1891 (not validly published18). — Auricularia nigra (Fr.) Earle in Bull. Torrey bot. Cl. 26: 633. 1899. !6"La Flore francaise de M. Decandolle m'a aussi ete d'un tres-grand secours; j'ai meme suivi, autant que possible, cet ouvrage, afin qu'on puisse s'y retrouver pour des descriptions plus detaillees, ou une synonymie plus etendue. . . . Les meillieurs auteurs m'ont d'ailleurs servi de guide, tels que Bulliard, mon parent "—Merat (p. ii). The genus is called "Auricularia. Bull. (Thelephora. Dec.)." (p. 33) and the following remark added: "Nota. Nous avons conserve le nom &'Auricularia, qui est celuf donne le premier a ce genre par Bulliard, de preference a celui de Thelephora, de Persoon . . . ." (p. 36). I am very much indebted to Dr. D. P. Rogers for kindly lending me Merat's booklet. "Explicitly indicated as the type species of Auricularia of Link (1809) by Bron- gniart (in Diet. Sci. nat. 1: 85. 1822) as "Peziza Auricula (Bull. T. 427 fig. II)." Brongniart (in 1822) referred Auricularia Bull, to the synonymy of Thelephora and favoured the other genus "auquel Link a donne depuis ce nom {Auricularia]." In this he followed Persoon who already before 1821 (Traite Champ, comest. 13. 1818) had indicated the type in precisely the same notation, but without mentioning the author of the name Auricularia he applied; the circumscription adopted by Persoon leaves no doubt that his genus is the same as the one defined by Link. This evidence supports the thesis that Auricularia of Persoon of 1822 cannot be typified by Au. mesenterica. It is difficult if not impossible, I believe, to reconstruct Brongniarfs indication of a type species in 1822 as binding for Auricularia Bull, ex Merat. In 1824 (see above) Brongniart returned to Auricularia Bull. 18Since the generic name "Auricula Batt." was not validly published by O. Kuntze, the combinations with that name are not validly published either. r 1952] DONK: Malesian Fungi—// 499Tremella auricula-canis G. Meyer, Prim. Fl. essequeb. 306. 1818 (devalidated name; n.v.). — Exidia auricula-canis (G. Meyer) ex Fr., Syst. mycol. 2 (1) : 222. 1822. Exidia purpurascens Jungh. in Verh. Bataviasche Genoots. 17 (2) : 25. 1838. — Auricularia purpurascens (Jungh.) Holterm., Mykol. Unters. Tropen 38. 1898 (as a synonym). Exidia hispidula Berk, in Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. I 3: 396. 1839. — Hirneola hispidula (Berk.) Berk. & Br. in J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 14: 76. 1874. — Auricula hispidula (Berk.) O.K., Rev. Gen. PI. 2: 844. 1891 (not validly published18). — Auricularia hispidula (Berk.) Farl., Bibl. Index 1: 307. 1905. Exidia polytricha Mont, in De la Sagra, Hist. Cuba, Bot., PI. cell. 365. 1842 (n.v.). — Hirneola polytricha (Mont.) Fr. in K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 1848: 146. — Auricularia polytricha (Mont.) Sacc, Misc. mycol. 1 (in Atti 1st. veneto VI 2) : 12. 1884. (n.v.). — Auricula polytricha (Mont.) O.K., Rev. Gen. PI. 2: 844. 1891 (not validly published18). Exidia rufa Berk, in Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. I 10: 384 pi. 12 f. 17. 1842. — Hirneola rufa (Berk.) Fr. in K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 1848: 147. — Auricula rufa (Berk.) O.K., Rev. Gen. PI. 2: 844. 1891 (not validly published18). HIRNEOLA AURICULA (L. ex Merat) H. Karst. The establishing of the correct name of the Judas' ear has already been an intricate puzzle for several years, since it was pointed out that Fries' publication of Exidia auricula-judae ("L.") ex Fr.19 in "Systema" [2 (1) : 221. 1822] is accompanied by a diagnosis drawn up from an exidia rather than from the true Judas' ear (cf. Donk in Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenz. Ill 17: 161-162. 1941). As the Rules are interpreted to-day by many mycologists the epithet 'auricula-judae' became transferred to the exidia when Fries committed his error. Martin (1943) considered Auricularia auricularis (S. F. Gray) G. W. Mart, (basinym,Gyraria auricularis S. F. Gray) the correct name. Donk (194.9: 89), accepted the epithet, but recombined it with Hirneola. This latter recombination is untenable in view of the earlier homonym H. auricularis Fr. (1848: 148), which was overlooked. Thus, under Hirneola, the epithet 'auricularis' cannot be applied to the present fungus either. Even if this were not the case, it seems likely that a still earlier epithet has to be taken up. The earliest name validly published for this fungus after January 1, 1821 seems to be Peziza auricula (L.) ex Merat (Nouv. Fl. Paris, 2e Ed., 26. 1821). It was published in the same year as Gyraria auricularis. D. P. Rogers (in Mycologia 43: 378. 1951),, who discussed the relative dates of the second edition of Merat's "Flore" and of S. F. Gray's "Arrang- I'JFries erred when he cited Linnaeus as the author of Tremella auricula-judae. Linnaeus' epithet is 'auricula'; the epithet as used by Fries was coined by Bulliard. Since Fries cited Bulliard for his forma b (without distinguishing an equivalent forma a) it may be concluded that Fries wanted to recombine Tremella auricula L. 500 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 merit," concluded that "Merat's work . . . quite certainly antedates Gray." The accompanying diagnosis leaves no doubt about the fungus Merat described as Peziza auricula L.: this is the Judas' ear. In case (i) it be permissible to typify the name as published by Merat by the type (or its substitute) of Tremella auricula L. (Sp. PI. 1625. 1753), and (ii) if this type really represents the hirneola under consideration (rather than an exidia), the correct name of the hirneola is either Hirneola auricula (L. ex Merat) H. Karst. or Auricularia auricula (L. ex Merat) Underw., according to the genus in which one wants to place this fungus. In the negative case the situation becomes quite complicated and, in view of the unsatisfactory and incomplete formulation of the Rules, not easy to solve. For the present I resort to the name H. auricula without being convinced that it is the correct name, or that the full authors' citation as used is admissible in all its parts. Those who defend the thesis that a name misapplied when validly re-published ought to be typified in its original sense will perhaps continue to regard H. auricula-judae as the correct name, the epithet having been published in the starting-point book. SPECIAL LITERATURE Cited in the text by means of dates printed in italics BURT, E. A. (1921) : Some North American Tremellaceae, Dacrymycetaceae, and Auri- culariaceae. [Auriculariaceae.] In Ann. Missouri bot. Gdn 8: 390-396 pi. 3 fs. 5-8. DONK, M. A. (1949) : New and revised nomina generica conservanda proposed for Basidiomycetes (Fungi). [Proposal 2 (revised).] In Bull. bot. Gdns Buitenz. Ill 18: 89-93. PRIES, E. M. (1849) : Fungi natalensis quos annis MDCCCXXXIX—MDCCCXL collegit J. A. Wahlberg, adjectis quibusdam capensibus. [Hirneola.] In K. svenska VetenskAkad. Handl. 1848: 144-148. HOLTERMANN, C. (1898) : Mykologische Untersuchungen aus den Tropen. [Auricularieen.] Berlin. 35-48 pis. 5 fs. ,20-23 & 6 fs. 1-6. LLOYD, C. G. (1918) : Mycological notes No. 55. [The genus Auricularm.] Mycol. Writ. .5: 783-785 fa. 1175-1177. LOWY, B. (1951a) : A morphological basis for classifying the species of Auricularia. In Mycologica 43: 351-358 f.l. (1951b) : New evidence for typification of Auricularia. Ibid. 43: 462-463. MARTIN, G. W. (1943): The generic name Auricularia. In Amer. Midi. Nat. 30: 77-82. MOLLER, A. (1895) : Protobasidiomyceten. [Auricularieen.] In Bot. Mitth. Tropen 8: 36-45 pi. 1 f. 1. PATOUILLARD, N. (1887) : Etude sur le genre Laschia. hi J. de Bot. 1: 225 ill. FETCH, T. (1910) : Revisions of Ceylon Fungi. (Part II.) [55.—Auricularia (sensu Lindau).] In Ann. roy. bot. Gdns, Peradeniya 4: 414-420. INDEX TO VOLUME I INDEX TO GENERA AND SPECIES New names and the final members of new combinations are in bold face type. The pages where illustrations appear are marked with an asterisk. Abies balsamea 206 Achroomyces 493 Acrostichum teysmannianum 27, 29 Adenia 481 Afrafzelia 61-63; africana 61, 64; atte- nuata 64; bracteata 64; petersiana 64; quanzensis 64 Afzelia 61-63; africana 61, 64; atte- nuata 64; bella 64; Bequaertii 65; bi- pindensis 65; borneensis 63; bracteata 64; Brieyi 65; caudata 65; cochinchi- nensis 64; discolor 65; javanica 63; javanica subsp. javanica 63; javanica subsp. longiflora 63; martabanica 64; microcarpa 65; pachyloba 65; peter- siana 64; peturei 65; quanzensis 64; rhomboidea 63; rhomboidea var. prae- termissa 63; rhomboidea var. rhomboi- dea 63; xylocarpa 64; Zenkeri 65 Agaricus subgen. Coprinus 217; sub gen. Gomphus 217 Aglossorhyncha longicaulis 6, 7* Aleurocystus 205 Aleurodiscus 205-208, 210, 216; amorphus 206, 207, 216; capensis 205; corneus 205; digitalis 199, 210; vitellinus 212 Ananas comosus 70 Annona muricata 70; reticulata 70 Antiaris 68, 73; toxicaria 71 Appendicula baliensis 20, 21*; crispa 20, 21*; jacobsonii 22, 23*; kjellbergii 20, 21*; linearis 18, 19*; recondita 22, 23*; salicifolia 20, 21*; seranica 20, 21*; spathilabris 22, 23*; theunissenii 22, 23*. verruculifera 18, 19* Arcypteris 171-173, 175, 191, 192, 196; brongniartii 191, 193, 195, 196; diffor- mis 191, 193; gigantea 191, 193, 195; irregularis 174*, 191, 192*, 193, 194; macrodonta 191, 193, 194, 195 Areca 69; catechu 71 Arenga 70; pinnata 54, 68, 71 Arrhenia 204, 214 Artocarpus communis 71; integra 70, 71 Asimina triloba 51 Aspidium 172, 173; eonjugatum 177; difforme 191, 193; giganteum 31; saxi- cola 31; subaequale 187 Auricula 494, 498; hispidula 499; nigra 498; polytricha 499; rufa 499 Auricularia 208, 487, 489-493, 496-498; auricula 500; auricula-judae 494, 496; auricularis 499; delicata 496; deliciosa 494; fuscosuccinea 490; hispidula 499; Judae 494; mesenterica 487, 488, 497, 498; mesenteriformis 498; moellerii 496; nigra 498; nigrescens 498; ornata 492*; pellucida 494; polytricha 494, 499; porphyrea 494; purpurascens 494, 499; reflexa 487; rosea 490; stellata 494; tremelloides 487; tremellosa 490, 494; tremulosa 494 Auriculariopsis 208 Averrhoa bilimbi 71; carambola 71 Benincasa 69 Berberis wallichiana 478 Biophytum 477; albiflorum 478; dendroi- des 477; fruticosum 477, 478; inter- medium 477; reinwardtii 477 Boletus fimbriatus 217; subtilis 217 Borassus 70, 71; flabellifer 71 Brypphyllum pinnatum 71 Cajanus indicus 71 Calamus 69, 71 Calanthe caulodes 24, 25*; reconditiflora 24, 25* Callicarpa 86 Calonectria 52, 58; ilicicola 58* Calyptella 208 Campanella 204 Canarium decumanum 71 502 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 Candelospora 51-53, 59; citri 52, 57; ili- cicola 51, 57 Cantharellus sect. Merisma 215;, trib. Pleuropsis 211, 213, trib. Resupinati 214; fasciculatus 215; glaucus 213; lobatus 214; muscigenus 209, 211, 213; retirugus 214; spathulatus 211; tenel- lus 214; umbonatus 211 Carex, see Index on p. 447 Carica papaya 71 Caripia 204 Cassia 452; fistula 71 Catilla 208 Ceiba pentandra 71 Celtis 71 Ceratostylis baliensis 8, 9*; brevicosta- ta 12, 13*; lombasangensis 12, 13*; malintangensis 10, 11*; nalbesiensis 12, 13*; sarcostomatoides 12, 13*; sca- riosa 10, 11*; selebensis 12, 13*; steeni- sii 8, 9*; succulenta 10, 11*; todjam- buensis 12, 13*; trinodis 14, 15*; trun- cata 10, 11* Cerbera manghas 71 Chaetocphye 208, 209 Chaetocypha 208, 210; variabilis 208 Chaetocyphe 209 Chaetoscypha 209 Chaetostroma pedicellatum 216 Chamaesenna 452 Chlorocyphella 209; subtropica 209 Chromocyphella 209, 210, 216 Chrysothrix 37 Citrus 52, 72; maxima 71; sinensls 57 Citrullus vulgaris 71 Cocos 69, 70; nucifera 68 Corniola 209, 211, 214 Cornus japonica 166 Corticium sect. Lomatia 215; trib. Apus 215; subdivision Lomatia 215; amor- phum 206, 215; fastidiosum 485, 486; habgallae 205; hakgallae 205; salici- num 210, 215 Costus 68 Cristella 485, 486; cristata 485, 486 Crocynia 37 Curcuma 68 Cyanoporina 197, 198; granulosa 198*, 198 Cyclomycetella 485 Cycloporellus 485 Cyclosorus 175 Cylindrocladium 51-54, 56, 60; citri 53, 54, 57; curvatum 54, 55*, 56*; ilicicola 52-55*, 56*, 57, 59; macrosporum 52-54, 56*, 60; parvum 52-55*, 56*; pithecolo- bii 52, 55; quinqueseptatum 53, 54, 55*, 56*, 59; scoparium 51, 52, 54, 55*, 56*, 59 Cymbolla 209, 210, 216; crouani 209, 216; galeata 210 Cypella 210 Cyphella 204, 207-211; abieticola 208; ampla 208; capula 208; digitalis 199, 207, 210; fasciculata 215; goldbachii 208; granulosa 219; hyperici 219; in- fundibuliformis 208; lacera 208; pan- dani 208 Cyperus alulatus 463, 464, 465*; iria 463, 464; iria var. rectangularis 463, 464; microiria 463; orthostachyus 463; ro- tundus 72 Cyphellopsis 210 Cypharium 210 Cytidia 210, 215; flocculenta 208, 211; rutilans 210 Cyphelium 208, 210 Dacryobolus 204 Dasyscypha 219 Dendrocyphella 211; setosa 211 Desmofischera 456; monosperma 456, 457 Dialium 452 Dictyolus 209, 211, 214 Dictyopteris 172, 173, 191; attenuata 191; compitalis 171, 179-181; difformis 193; hemiteliiformis 179, 187; irregularis 191; macrodonta 191, 194; pteroides 191 Dioscorea 70; alata 72; esculenta 72 Diplocladium 51; cylindrosporum 51, 55 Discocyphella 204 Dryopteris sagenoides forma contracta 27 Durio zibethinus 72 Index to Volum,e I 503 Dyctiolus 211 Dyctiotus 211 Elaeocarpus 36, 462 Elaphoglossum 175 Eperua rhomboidea 63 Epiblastus accretus 14, 15*; buruensis 14, 15*; seranicus 14, 15* "Epibryus" 211 Eriocaulon 472 Eucalyptus 52, 70, 72; sp. 72 Eugenia aromatica 72; jambos 72; malac- censis 72 Eupatorium inulifolium 479, 480; odo- ratum 478, 479; pallescens 479; repan- dum 478; riparium 480 Exidia 488, 489, 491, 493; auricula-canis 499; auricula-judae 499; hispidula 499; polytricha 499; purpurascens 499; rufa 499 Favolaschia 204 Favolus 488 Fistulina 204 Fusarium 52 Garcinia mangostana 72; picrorhiza 68 Gentiana 472 Geunsia 86 Gleditschia triacanthos 51 Gleichenia linearis 478; longissima 478; volubilis 478 Gloeosoma 212 - Gloeosporium piperatum 59 Glomera connexiva 6, 7*; lancipetala 8, 9*; plumosa 8, 9*; pumilio 6, 7*; secun- da 6, 7* Glycine soya 69 Gnaphalium longifolium 478; maximum 478 Gnetum subsect. Sessiles 462; diminutum 462; leptostachyum 462; leptostachyum var. abbreviatum 462; leptostachyum var. robustum 462 Gossypium sp. 72 Gyraria auricularis 499 Gyrophoropsis 35 Helicia 474 Helotium gibbum 208 Henningsomyces 212, 219 Heritiera tinctoria 43, 44 Heterogonium 27, 28, 172; alderwereltii 28, 30; aspidioides 28, 30; giganteum 27, 28, 30, 31; nieuwenhuisii 30; pin- natum 28, 30; profereoides 28, 30; sagenoides 27, 28; sagenoides forma contracta 28, 29; saxicola 27, 30; steno- semioides 27-30; teysmannianum 28, 29, 30 Hibiscus Sabdariffa 55 Hirneola 487-494, 496, 497, 499; affinis 490, 493, 495, 496; auricula 487, 488, 494, 496-500; auricula-judae 488, 500; auricularis 499; delicata 498; hispidula 499; nigra 498; nigricans 490, 493, 494, 496, 498; polytricha 490, 496, 498, 499; rufa 499 Hollrungia 480; aurantioides 480 Hydnum 218 Hymenochaete 488 Hypolyssus 204 Ilex alternifolia 166; aquifolium 51, 58; cymosa 166; paraguayensis 52 Imperata 480 Indigofera 70 Intsia 61, 62; africana 61, 64; attenuata 64; bijuga 72; bracteata 64; petersiana 64; quanzensis 64; rhomboidea 63; rhomboidea var. praetermissa 63; rhomboidea var. rhomboidea 63 Ipomoea 70; batatas 72 Kalappia 451, 452; celebica 451, 452, 453* Kobressia 224; curvata 221, 223, 224, 331 Koompassia 452 Lachnella 212, 213; alboviolascens 212; barbata 213 Lachnium 213 Lagenaria leucantha 72 Lantana 480 Laschia 487-490, 492-494, 496, 497; affi- nis 493, 495*; delicata 494, 496; tremel- losa 494; velutina 494 Leprocaulon 37; arbuscula 37,38*; nanum 37 Leptoglossis 214 504 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 Leptoglossum 204, 209, 211, 213, 214 Leptopus 214 Leptotes 214 Leptotis 214 Leptotus 204, 214 Liparis aptenodytes 4, 5*; a r c u a t a 1; auriculifera 4, 5*; bibullata 4, 5*; bi- globulifera 1; endertii 1; kemulensis 4, 5*; kerintjiensis 2, 3 * ; lycopodioides 1; murkelensis 2, 3 * ; spiralipetala 4, 5*; togensis 2, 3* Lomaria 215 Lomariopsis 175 Lomatia 211, 214, 215 Lomatina 211; 215 Lomatium 215 Macadamia 474; hildebrandii 474, 475; prealta 474, 477; ternifolia 476; terni- folia var. integrifolia 477; whelani 474, 475; verticillata 474, 475; youngiana 474 Maesa 118 Mangifera indica 72 Marasmus subgen. Apus 17; sect. Pleu- rotopsis 217; spodoleucus 217 Matula 205; poroniaeformis 205; rom- pelii 205 Mediocalcar selebicum 16, 17*; seranicum 16, 17*; ternatense 16, 17* Megalotinus 111 Melaleuca 72 Merisma cristatum 486 Merismodes 204, 215 Merulius 204, 488; lobatus 209; musci- genus 209; tremellosus 220 Metroxylon 70; sp. 72 Microtinus 111, 154; odoratissimus 153 Mimulus 472; nepalensis 474; tenellus 474 Monarthrocarpus securif ormis 456, 457; securiformis var. monophylla 456 Monostachya 472 Moringa oleifera 72 Mycoblastus 36; endoxanthus 36 Mycobonia 488, 497 Mylittopsis 493 Myristica fatua 69, 72; f r a g r a n s 72 Musa sapientum 72; troglodytarum 72 Nephrodium 171; chrysotrichum 171, 187; giganteum 191, 195 Nicotiana tabacum 72 Nodularia 206, 207, 215, 216; balsamicola 206, 216 Octarrhena hastipetala 24, 25*; vanvuu- renii 24, 25* Omphalina 208 Oreinotinus 111 Oreobolus 472 Oryza sativa 72 Pachyrhizus 69; erosus 69 Pahudia 61-63; afrieana 61, 64; attenua- ta 64; bella 64; bipindensis 65; bor- neensis 63; bracteata 64; Brieyi 65; caudata 65; cochinchinensis 64; j a v a - nica 62, 63; javanica subsp. eujavanica 63; javanica subsp. longiflora 63; martabanica 64; microcarpa 65; pachy- loba 65; quanzensis 64; rhomboidea 63; rhomboidea var. praetermissa 63; xy- locarpa 64 Patersonia 472 Penicillium 51 Peniophorina 204, 216 Perona 208 Perrotia 213 P e t r a e a 86 Peziza 207; alboviolascens 212, 213; amor- pha 206, 207, auricula 498-500; bar- bata 213; capula 212; flammea 213; nigra 498; nigrescens 498; nigricans 498 Phaeocarpus 209, 210, 216 Phaeocyphella 209, 210, 216; sphaerospora 216 Phaeosolenia 216; platensis 216 Phegopteris macrodonta 194; obscura 29; schizoloma 27, 29 Phlebiella 486 P h r e a t i a asciformis 24, 25* Physalis 72 Pisonia alba 73 Pistillina 204 Pithecolobium saman 51 Pleocnemia 171-173, 175, 177, 187, 191, 192, 196; acuminata 171, 176, 182; Index to Volume I 505 chrysotricha 171, 175, 177, 187; conju- g a t a 171, 174*, 176-178*, 179, 182, 184; conjugata var. elatior 171, 179; cumin- giana 175, 177, 183, 184, 186*-189; di- midiolobata 171, 176, 184, 185*; hemite- liiformis 171, 175, 176, 179, 180*, 181; javanica 171, 177, 179; kingii 171, 176, 186, 187; leuzeana 171, 173, 175-177, 184, 188; leuzeana var. hemiteliaefor- mis 171, 179; olivacea 171, 175, 176, 178*, 180, 181, 182; pleiotricha 171, 176, 182, 183*; porphyrocaulos 175, 177, 188; presliana 171, 176, 183-185*; sera- nensis 171, 177, 187; stenosemioides 30; tripinnata 171, 175, 176, 185, 186*; winitii 171, 176, 181 Pleurotopsis 204, 217 Pleurotus 217 Plicatura 204, 217; alni 217; nivea 217; spodoleuca 217 Plocoglottis seranica 24, 25* Podochilus lamii 18, 19*; lobatipetalus 18, 19*; mentawaiensis 18, 19*; uni- florus 16, 17* Podostrombium 204 Polybotrya nieuwenhuisii 27; nieuwen- huisii var. brooksii 27, 29, 30 Polypodium andaiense 195, 196; brownii 191; brongniartii 191, 195; irregulare 191, 193; leuzeanum 171, 184; obscu- rum 29; pteroides 191, 195 Polyporus 217, 218; subgen. Porotheleum 217, 218; fimbriatus 199, 217-219; iodi- nus 485; pavonius 485; subtilis 218 Poria fimbriata 217, 218 Porina 198 Porolaschia 204 Porotheleum 217, 218, 219; lacerum 217, 218 Porothelium 199, 218, 219 Portulaca 73 Potentilla 472 Premna 86 Protococcus 37 Pseudodasycypha 219 Psidium guajava 73 Pteridrys 173 Pterocassia 452 Pterocymbium 41-44, 47, 49; beccarii 41- 43, 47; campanulatum 41, 44, 45; col- umnare 43-45; gigantifolium 41, 48, 49; javanicum 41-45, macrocrater 41, 43, 45; parviflorum 41, 43, 47, 48; sti- pitatum 41-43, tinctorium 41, 43-45, 47; tinctorium var. javanicum 41, 45- 47; tubulatum 41, 43, 47, 48; viridiflo- rum 41, 43, 45 Punctularia 204 Rimbachia 204, 219; paradoxa 219 Saccharum officinarum 73 Saccopetalum horsfieldii 461; koolsii 459, 460*; longipes 459 Samanea saman 51 Sandoricum koetjape 73 Santalum album 73 . Scaevola 85 Schoenoxiphium 221, 223, 224, 331 Schoepfia 467, 469, 470, 472; sect. Codo- num 468; sect. Euschoepfia 468, 469; sect. Schoepfiopsis 468, 469; acuminata 468-470; chinensis 469; f r a g r a n s 468- 471*; f r a g r a n s var. shanensis 470, gib- bosa 469, griffithiana 469, 470; grif- fithii 469, 470, 472; jasminodora 469; miersii 468, 470 Schoepfiopsis acuminata 470; f r a g r a n s 470 Scytonema 36, 198 Sebacina 485, 486 Sesamum 73 Sesbania sesban 55 Seymeria 62 Smilax pygmaea 472, 473* Solena 219 Solenia 212, 216, 219; anomala 210; Can- dida 212, 219 Solenotinus 111 Soppittiella 486; cristata 486 Stenosemia teysmannianum 29 Sterculia 43, 49; a t r o p u r p u r e a 46; cam- panulata 44; columnaris 43, 44; gigan- tifolia 49; membranifolia 41, 49; tubu- lata 47; tubulosa 47 Stereocaulon 37; arbuscula 37; nanum 37, 39 506 R E I N W A R D T I A [VOL. 1 Stereophyllum 204 Sterellum 204 Stereum 204, 218, 488-491, 493, 498; sect. Cruentata 4 1 ; sect. Luteola 491; hir- sutum 487, 488; purpureum 490 Stigmatolemrna 219; incanum 219 Storckiella 452 Stromatoscypha 199, 218; fimbriata 199, 219 Strychnos ligustrina 73 Syzygium aronlaticum 59 Tamarindus indica 73 Tapesia 219; fuscus 220 Tectaria 28, 171-173, 191, 192; angulata 174*; irregularis var. brongniartii 195, irregularis var. macrodon 194; kingii 171, 186; leuzeana 187; macrodus 194; multicaudata 174*; olivacea 171, 181; subaequalis 187 Teij smanniodendron, see Index on p. 106 Terminalia catappa 73 Thelephora 487, 498; sub gen. Epibryus 2 1 1 : sect. Cartilagineae 215; sect. R. spurii 215; amorpha 206; cristata 485, 486; muscigena 212; vulgaris 212; vul- garis var. Candida 212 Thelidium 198 Thelypteris 175 Tinus 111 Trabecularia 220; villosa 220 Trasus 224 Tremella auricula 487, 499, 500; auricula- canis 499; auricula-judae 487, 499 Tripogon exiguus 478 Trogia 204; alni 217 Uittienia 452 Umbilicaria 33-35; zollingeri 33, 34* Uncinia 221, 223, 224; microglochin 224 Urceolus 220 Usnea 478 Viburnum, see Index on p. 170 Vitex, see Index on p. 106 Vitis 73; vinifera 73 Washingtonia 60; robosta 52, 56 Wiesnerina 204, 220; horrida 220 Xerocarpa 75, 77, 85, 86; avicenniaefolio- la 75, 76, 84-86 Zea mays 73 C. G. C. REINWARDT REINWARDTIA BEING A CONTINUATION OF THE BULLETIN DU JARDIN BOTANIQUE DE BUITENZORG (BULLETIN OF THE BOTANIC GARDENS, BUITENZORG) EDITORS M. A. DONK (Herbarium Bogoriense) AND C. G. G. J. VAN STEENIS (Flora Malesiana) Volume 1 (With Frontispiece) 1950—1952 Published by HERBARIUM BOGORIENSE KEBUN RAYA INDONESIA Binder7 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_01 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_19 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_20 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_21 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_22 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_23 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_24 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_25 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_26 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_27 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_28 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_29 Rein.Vol 1,Part 4, pp 451-506_Page_30