Figs. 13-16, 60-65.
Fomes noxius Corner, Gard. Buh. Straits Settlem. 5(12): 342-345. 1932; Briton-Jones, Dis. Curing Cacao, 6. 1934; Napper, Planter 15(10): 407. 1934; Van der Goot, Meded. Inst. Plantenziekt. 83: 59-60, 63-66. 1934; Beeley, Planter 16: 488. 1935; Foston, Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya 1934: 156. 1935; Prillwitz, Algem. Labdb. Weekbl.-Ind. 20(2): 25. 1935; Bergcultures 9(28): 890. 1935; Psaltze, Bergcultures 9(37): 850. 1935; Tempany, Ann. Rep. Dep. Agr. Malay States 1935: 64. 1935; Van der Goot, Meded. Inst. Plantenziekt. 85: 71, 75, 78, 80. 1935; Heusden, Bergcultures 10(22): 693, 695. 1936; Van der Goot, Meded. Inst. Plantenziekt. 87: 78. 1936; 89: 92. 1937; Greig, Malayan Agr. Jour. 25(11): 452. 1937; Thompson, Bull. Dep. Agr. Malay States Gen. Ser. 21: 1. 1937; Park, Ceylon Dep. Agr. Adm. Rep. 1937: D-43. 1938; Napper, Planter 19(9): 454. 1938; West, Kew Bull. Misc. Inf. 1938: 18-20, 22-23. 1938; Badcock, Brit. Mycol. Soc. Trans. 23(2): 193. 1939; Belgrave, Ann. Rep. Dep. Agr. Malay States 1938: 69, 72. 1939; D'Aeth, Biol. Rov. Biol. Proc. 14(2): 109. 1939; Muller, Landbouw. Nederl.-Ind. 15(5): 288. 1939; Thompson, Malayan Agr. Jour. 27(3): 86, 91, 95. 1939; Boedijn, Bull. Jard. Bot. Buitenzorg III. 16(4): 390. 1940; Briton-Jones, Dis. Coconut Palm, 139. 1940; Dade, Kew Bull. Misc. Inf. 1940: 222. 1940; Fernando, Trop. Agr. Ceylon 95(2): 72-78. 1940; Gordon-Duff, Rubb. Res. Inst. Ceylon Quart. Circ. 17(2): 131. 1940; Park & Fernando, Peradeniya Man. 4(3): 25, 29, 32, 41, 43, 45. 1941; Staner, Inst. Roy. Colon. Belg. Mem. 11: 11. 1941; Thomp,son, Malayan Agr. Jour. 29(6): 241. 1941; Stevaert Bull Soc Roy Bot Belg. II. 30: 27. 1948; Poole, U. S. Dep. Foreign Serv. Circ. Airgr. Kuala Lumpur. 52. 1950; Wallace & AA'allace, Tanganyika Dep. Agr. Mycol. Circ. 29: 3 5 1950; Jones, East Afric. Agr. For. Res. Organ. Ann. Rep. 1950: 28. 1951; Roger Phytopath" Pays Chauds 1: 1037, 1038-1039. 1951; Parham, Fiji Dep. Agr., Aar. Jour 23(2): 18. 1952; Wallace, Tanganyika Dep. Agr. Ann. Rep. 1950: 169, 172 1952; Siocas Agron Trop. 8: 254-255. 1953; Thompson & Johnston, Mycol. Pap. Commonw. Mycol Inst. 52: 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18, 23, 26, 31. 1953; Wallace & Wallace, Mycol. Pap. Commonw: Mycol. Inst. 51: 3. 1953; Anon., Rubb. Pes. Inst. Malava. Planters' Bull 10: 15 1954; Borget & Dromllon, Agron. Trop. 9: 195. 1954; Dumbleton, So. Pacif. Comn. Tech. Pap. 78: 42, 49, 64. 1954; Thrower, Papua N. Guin. Agr. Jour. 10(1): 1-14. 1955; Morwood, Fiji Dep. Agr., Agr. Jour. 27: 51. 1956; Lowe, Polyp N Amer., Genus Pomes. 44-45. 1957; Riggenbach, Nature 182: 1390-1391. 1958; Harwood: Dep. Agr., Agr. Jour. 29: 97. 1959; Leather, Ghana Min. Agri. Bull. 1: 15, 22, 30-31. 1959; Johnston, Mycol. Pap. Commonw. Mycol. Inst. 77: 6, 11, 22. 1960; Riley, Mycol. Pap. Commonw. Mycol. Inst. 75: 10, 11. 1960; Piening, Ghana Min. Agr. Bull. 2: 33. 1962; Johnston, FAO Plant Protect. Commit. S. E Asia & Pacif Reg., Tech. Doc. 27: 4, 8. 1963.
Hymenochaete noxia Berk, in herb., Cooke., Grevillea 8(48): 149. 1880, from Samoa—nomen nudum (teste Corner, 1932).
Phellinus (Poria) cacao Pat., nomen nudum ? (in herb., T. F. Chipp, June 21, 1920, Sing. Field 5754. in Pat. coll. at FH; reported by Comer, Gard. Bull. Strails Settlem. 5(12): 337. 1932, as Fomes cacao Pat.).
Type. Lectotype, E. J. H. Corner, Jan. 1, 1932, Sing. Field 25750, at BPI; isotypes at NY and BPI; paratypes: Chipp, 1920, Sing. Field 5756; 1922, Sing. Field 8991; Corner, 1930, Sing. Field 2316S; Corner, 1930, Sing. Field 23741; Corner, 1930, Sing. Field 24486; Corner, 1931, Sing. Field 24851; Singapore, C. F. Baker 5423, 1917; Peradeniya Herb. 5412; Philippine Is., Luzon I., Elmer 7556, May 1906, at NY.
Type Locality. Botanic Gardens, Singapore, Malayan Federation.
Basionym. Fomes no.rius Corner, 1932.
Illustrations. Corner, Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem. 5(12): text-fig. lb, 3a, 5c, d, m, n, 6b. 1932; Briton-Jones, Dis. Curing Cacao, text-fig. 2-3. 1934; Thompson, Bull. Dep. Agr. Malay States Gen. Ser. 21: 1937; Stevaert, Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. II. 3 0 : pl. VI, photos 13-14. 1948; Thrower, Papua N. Guin. Agr. Jour. 10(1): fig. 14. 1955; Cunningham, Polyp. New Zealand, 221-222. 1965.
Discussion. Phellinus noxius is allied to Phellinus pachyphloeus and its group, representing, however, with P. melanodermus one extreme of its variation. It has been confused with P lamaensis. More recently, several authors have considered P. noxius a mere synonym of Phellinus lamaensis. However, without question both are good species and very distinct. In Phellinus noxius the surface is formed in a completely different way than any of its relatives, the paraderm being one of its most important specific characters. In P. magnosporus such cells are elongated periclinally forming a cutis while in the others a cortex constitutes the surface. In the other species the surface becomes encrusted and results from a layer of agglutinated hyphae which starts deeply immersed in the middle of the context near the margin; in this layer the hyphae vary in orientation from almost entirely periclinal near the margin to nearly anticlinal at the base of the sporophore. In the places where the hyphae of the crustiform portion run periclinally, they block, partially or entirely, the passage of the setal skeletal hyphae which does not happen where the generative hyphae are anticlinal. This is the case in P. lamaensis and P. pachyphloeus. In P. portoricensis such a layer always runs periclinally and for this reason the layer developed over it shows a completely different structure with no setal skeletal hyphae. In P. noxius the encrusted surface does not result by the exposure of an inner layer, nor represents at any time the real extreme limit of the whole structure as seen under the microscope. This extreme limit is represented by a thin, subhyaline and irregular paraderm not visible macroscopically. Below this layer, encrustation takes place and since the hyphae are mostly anticlinally oriented, they do not block the passage of the setal skeletal hyphae which may, therefore, project from the paraderm. The context of P noxius is also different by being radially fibrous and marked by narrow concentric zones, alternately darker and lighter in color. In resupinate forms such characters as type of surface and aspect of context have no value at all in deciding the species. In this case, P. noxius is readily recognized by the presence of obtuse setal skeletal hyphae in the dissepiments which project into the lumen and by the absence of the hymenial setae. Phellinus melanodermus does not possess hymenial setae but the acute setal skeletal hyphae of the dissepiments are not so abundant and seldom project into the lumen of the tubes. The absence of these hymenial setae also was reported for P. magnosporus by Humphrey and Leus (1932) but, although rare, I was able to locate them at the base of tubes of the type. At FH I found the collection referred to by Corner (1932: 337) and named by Patouillard as Phellinus (Poria) cacao Pat. (so far as I know, this name was never validly published and thus it is only a herbarium name). The specimens arc all resupinate, somewhat burnt, with tubes 3-3.5 mm long, setal skeletal hyphae of the context 4.5-8.5 µ diam, setal skeletal hyphae of the dissepiments, obtuse, dark ferruginous, 7.5-14 µ diam, hymenial setae absent, basidia honeycombed, and basidiospores yellowish, subglobose, smooth, thin-wahed, 4-5.5 X 3.5-5 µ. Such characters fit entirely within the pattern established for P. noxius except that the basidiospores are slightly larger. I do not doubt that the collection in question belongs to P. noxius. In regard to the treatment of P no.rius by Cunningham (1965), I feel that it is necessary to make the following remarks: (1) In synonymy with Phellinus noxius, Cunningham (1965) placed Poria setuloso-crocea Clel. cl- Rodw. and Poria luteo-fulvus Clel. ct Rodw. (Cleland & Rodway 1929) both described three years before Corner (1932) validly published his Fomes noxius. Cunningham (1965) was not consistent with his own ideas since, if he firmly believed that they were synonyms, he should have made a new combination based on Poria setuloso-crocea and should have placed Corner's (1932) species in its synonymy. Cunningham's explanation of his procedure, cannot be sustained under the Code. Poria setuloso-crocea was described as having basidiospores 5.5-6 X 3.7 µ, acuminate, deep brown "setae," 165-199 X 8-11.5 µ, and pores 6-7 per mm. From such data I am unable to tell if it is or not synonymous with Fomes norius. Basidiospores and pores are slightly larger and the "setae" (= setal skeletal hyphae) are within the range of variation accepted for Fomes noxius. The important characteristic of the presence of obtuse setal skeletal hyphae in the dissepiments, which would clearly identify Fomes no.rius, is not mentioned for Poria setulosocrocea. Poria luteo-fulvus was indicated by Cleland ct Rodway (1929) as being among species with few setae or with none; they did not see any setae, but they reported the presence of uncinate setae based on Weir's notes. Pores of Poria luteo-fulvus were said to be 3 per mm. I have not been able to locate the types of both the two Poriae; however, with present information, P. setuloso-crocea can not be excluded as a possible synonym, while P luteo-fulvus probably would not belong to the "pachyphloeus" group. (2) Ventricose hymenial setae 16-24 X 6-8 µ and subclavate paraphyses (?) 8-14 X 3.5-4 µ were indicated. In none of the collections examined was I able to see hymenial setae. Under the term "paraphyses" different microstructures were included. (3) Basidia were reported as being 12-16 X 4-5 µ, whereas my measurements indicate that they would be nearly half that size.