E-text prepared by Victoria Woosley, La Monte H. P. Yarroll, and the
Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(https://www.pgdp.net)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 21761-h.htm or 21761-h.zip:
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/1/7/6/21761/21761-h/21761-h.htm)
      or
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/1/7/6/21761/21761-h.zip)


Transcriber's notes:

      Irregularities or errors in spelling, punctuation or
      capitalization have been preserved as in the original text.

      Text bolded in the original is delimited by '#', underlined
      text by '=' and italic text by '_'.

      The paragraphs immediately before and after "SECTION 2.
      PHYLACIA." were rendered in smaller font in the original
      text. The context does not seem to indicate an intent to
      block quote (see "SPECULATION" later in text), so this has
      been transcribed as normal text.




=SYNOPSIS= OF =SOME GENERA= OF THE =LARGE PYRENOMYCETES=

CAMILLEA

THAMNOMYCES

ENGLEROMYCES

_by_

C. G. LLOYD







CINCINNATI, OHIO, JANUARY, 1917






THE GENUS CAMILLEA.


The receipt of a nice specimen of Camillea Cyclops from Rev. Torrend,
Brazil, has induced us to work over the similar species in our
collection. On our last visit to Europe we photographed the various
specimens we found in the museums, but did not study them as to
structure. However, they make such characteristic photographs that we
believe the known species can be determined from our figures.

We are all familiar with the common Hypoxylons that form little globose,
black balls, usually on dead limbs, in our own woods. They have a solid
carbonous interior with the perithecia imbedded near the surface. There
have been over two hundred alleged Hypoxylons, mostly from the tropics.
We have never worked them over, but suspect that a number of them from
the tropics, when examined, will be found to be Camilleas. If the
specimens were examined, no doubt "prior" specific names would be found
for several of this list.[1]

In the old days all similar carbonous fungi were called Sphaeria.
Montagne first received a section of Sphaeria with cylindrical form,
from South America. The perithecia were long, cylindrical, and were
arranged in a circle or were contiguous, near the summit of the stroma.
He proposed to call it Bacillaria, as a section of Sphaeria, but the
name being preoccupied, he, at the suggestion of Fries, afterwards named
it in honor of himself, Camillea, Montagne's first name being Camille.

The original species were separated into a genus by Montagne in 1855,
and five species listed, and it is a curious fact that these five
species, as well as all others that have since been added, are of the
American tropics. I have not worked over the "Hypoxylons" in the
museums, but as far as the records go the genus Camillea does not occur
in other tropical countries.

In 1845 Léveillé announced that he had discovered a plant resembling an
Hypoxylon which had, however, the spores borne on filaments
(acrogenous), and not in perithecia. He called it Phylacia globosa, and
classified it in Sphaerioidaea. The specimen (Fig. 847) is still at
Paris. Saccardo has omitted it, and states that Phylacia is probably a
pycnidial condition of Hypoxylon turbinatum. Both were guesses, one
statement surely, and both probably, wrong. The interior is filled with
a powder that under the microscope appears to be made up of ligneous
filaments mixed with a few spores. These filaments appear to me to be
the disintegrated walls of the perithecia, and not the "filaments that
bear the spores." From analogy, at any rate, the spores of all these
similar species are probably borne in asci which disappear early, and
Phylacia seems to be the same genus as Camillea, the walls of the
perlthecla disintegrating and forming a powdery mass. If this view is
correct, Camillea can be divided into two sections.

#EUCAMILLEA.#--Perithecia persistent.

#PHYLACIA.#--Perithecia early disintegrated.


SECTION 1. EUCAMILLEA.


CAMILLEA LEPRIEURII (Fig. 826).--Carbonous, black, cylindrical, 2-3 cm.
long, 3-4 mm. thick. Apex truncate, excavate. Perithecia linear, near
apex of stroma. Asci (teste Montagne) linear, 8 spored. Spores (pale)
spindle shape, dark, 6-7 × 25-35 mic.

[Illustration: #Fig. 826.#]

A most peculiar and apparently a rare species. All the specimens I have
noted came to Montagne from Leprieur, French Guiana. Berkeley records it
from Brazil, Spruce, but I think it has not been collected in recent
years. Our figure 826 is from specimens in Montagne's herbarium, and
these are three times as long as the specimen Montagne pictures. I saw
no such short specimens. Patouillard has given a detailed account of the
structure of the plant. The perithecia are arranged in a circle neat the
apex of the stroma. The spores are spindle shaped (rather than caudate,
as Montagne shows them) and 25 to 35 mic long. Patouillard claims that
Hypoxylon melanaspis has same spores and structure, and is the pulvinate
form of Camillea Leprieurii. It does not seem possible to me, but I can
not say to the contrary.


CAMILLEA BACILLUM (Fig. 827).--Stroma cylindrical, black, 1 cm. long, 1
mm. thick. Apex truncate, shown punctulate in Montagne's drawing. Spores
dark, reniform.

[Illustration: #Fig. 827.#]

This is very similar to the preceding in shape, but is a much smaller
species with different spores (teste Montagne). We have only seen the
originals in Montagne's herbarium, from which our figure is made. The
drawing given by Montagne represents the plant better than our
photograph. Montagne records the species from Cuba and French Guiana. We
think it a very rare plant.


CAMILLEA MUCRONATA (Fig. 828).--Stroma cylindrical, black, 6 mm. long, 3
mm. thick. Apex with a prominent, mucronate point. Perithecia linear,
contiguous, near the apex of the plant. Asci cylindrical. Spores oblong
(M.) 3½ to 4 × 10 mic., colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 828.#]

This also is a rare species, only known from the original collection by
Leprieur, French Guiana. Our photograph is from the type. In the
original drawing there is a circle of little acute protuberances shown
near the apex of the plant. We can see but faint indication of them in
our photograph.


CAMILLEA LABELLUM (Fig. 829).--Plant short, cylindrical, about a cm.
tall and thick, with a depressed disc. Perithecia contiguous, forming at
layer beneath the disc. Spores (M.) fusiform, dark, 30 mic., long.

I believe the plant is only known from the original collection in
Montagne's herbarium, from Leprieur, French Guiana. It does not follow,
however, that it is such a rare plant, but only that the plants of the
region have been scantily collected. Our figure is a photograph of the
types.

[Illustration: #Fig. 829.#]


CAMILLEA TURBINATA (Figs. 830-833).--Plants obconic or turbinate, about
a cm. tall and broad, growing in a dense cluster from a common, mycelial
carbonous base. The summit is truncate, and marked with a raised central
disc, which is thin and in old plants breaks irregularly. A section of a
young plant (Figs. 831 ×6) shows the lower part composed of rather soft,
carbonous tissue, the upper filled with a light brown powder, composed
of spores mixed with hyphae tissue. In old plants the tops break in, the
powder is dissipated, and there remains (Fig. 833) a bundle of carbonous
tubes, the walls of the perithecia. Finally, these break up and
disappear, leaving the upper part of the plant hollow. The spores are
elliptical, 6-7 × 16-18 mic., smooth, light colored. The asci which
disappear at at very early stage, are shown by Moeller as oval, each
containing 8 spores.

This is at common plant in our American tropics, and was named by
Berkeley, as Hypoxylon turbinatum, but in a later paper he referred it
to Camillea turbinata. It is compiled in Saccardo as Hypoxylon. I doubt
not but that it was named Sphaeria caelata by Fries many years "prior."
Spegazzini found it abundantly, and noting that it was not a good
Hypoxylon, puzzled over it in two or three papers and finally also
concluded that it was at Camillea. Moeller also "discovered" it, and
although the common plant was well known in other centers, the rumors
had not reached Berlin, hence he "discovered" it was a new genus, which
he dedicated to his friend, Dr. Hennings and called it Henningsinia
durissima. Fortunately, he gave a good figure by which his "discovery"
could be interpreted.

We have beautiful specimens from Dr. J. Dutra, Brazil, from which our
figure was made, also we have specimens from Rev. Rick.

[Illustration: #Fig. 830.# Camillea turbinata. (Side view, natural size.)]

[Illustration: #Fig. 831.# Section with spore mass (X 6).]

[Illustration: #Fig. 832.# Same, top view.]

[Illustration: #Fig. 833.# Section after dispersion of spores.]


CAMILLEA CYCLOPS.--Plants short, cylindrical, or semi-globose, black,
about 4 mm. in diameter, erumpent from a common mycelial origin, and
distributed regularly over the matrix. They are produced at intervals of
about ½ cm, and apparently never two contiguous. Apex a circular,
rounded depression, with a slightly elevated disc. Perithecia arranged
in a central bundle, with permanent, carbonous walls (Fig. 835 ×6).
Spores oblong, 8 × 12, pale colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 834.# Camillea Cyclops.]

[Illustration: #Fig. 835.#]

While this as probably not a rare plant in the American tropics, it
appears to have been only known from the Leprieur collections sent to
Montagne. We have recently gotten it from Rev. Torrend, Brazil, and the
receipt of the specimens inspired this pamphlet. I notice on some of
these specimens (not all) little protruding points that are similar to
those that Montagne shows, near the apex of Camillea mucronata. These
appear like abortive surface perithecia, but I do not find any clue to
their nature, and I do not know what they are. Cyclops was the name of a
giant in mythology that had but one eye in the middle of his forehead.
Thus species has but one "eye," but it is hardly a giant.

In the same paper in which Montagne lists Camillea Cyclops, he names
and figures Hypoxylon macromphalum. I can not tell the photograph
(Fig. 837) I made of the type from the photograph of Camillea Cyclops.
From Montagne's sectional figure, the perithecia are arranged in the
same manner, and the two plants are surely cogeneric and, I believe,
identical. A close reading of Montagne's description discloses but one
point of difference. He records that in Hypoxylon macromphalum the
ostioles are prominent, and in a close examination of my photograph, I
do note minute points on the disc that are absent from Camillea
cyclops. Still I believe they are the same plant.

[Illustration: #Fig. 837.#]


SECTION 2. PHYLACIA.


This might be made a genus, corresponding to Hypoxylon as to stroma,
but having the stroma hollow and filled with a pulverulent mass. In
reality, I think it is a better Camillea, the perithecia arranged the
same way, not permanent, but broken up at an early stage. Of course,
it is only an inference. Léveillé states that it has the spores borne
on hyphae (acrogenous), but I do not place much value on Léveillé's
statements. Patouillard, after admitting that he saw nothing but this
powdery mass, adds "it is probable that the spores were contained in
logettes with fugacious walls, of which only the marks on the inner
side of the cavity remain." It would have been better if he had
stopped there, but he goes on to propose afterwards that Hypoxylon
Bomba should be held distinct from Camillea under the name Phylacia,
because it presents a form "stylospored" and a form "ascospored." He
does not give the reason for the assertion that it is "stylospored,"
not even citing the uncertain testimony of Léveillé. Phylacia might be
held distinct from Camillea on the ground of the powdery mass and the
early disappearance of the perithecia and ascus walls. There is
nothing new about that. It was done years ago by Fries who called the
"genus" Leveilleana, which is a tip for some future name-juggler. All
that is really known about its early structure is only from inference,
and that inference is contrary to its having been "stylospored."

[Illustration: #Fig. 838.#  #Fig. 839.#  #Fig. 840.#
               Camillea Sagraena. Fig. 838, a cluster natural size;
               Fig. 839, broken specimen as often seen; Fig 840, two
               long stipe specimens.]


CAMILLEA SAGRAENA (Figs. 838-840).--Plants oblong about 3-4 mm.,
stipitate or substipitate at the base, growing densely caespitose, in
patches, black, smooth, the apices usually obscurely mammillate. Stipes
usually short, but sometimes 6-8 mm. long, and when growing in clusters,
the bases consolidated by a carbonous stroma. Interior of the receptacle
in two compartments (Fig. 841 ×6), the lower filled with soft tissue,
black around the edges, but _white_ in the center. The upper compartment
filled with a mass of spores mixed with a few fragments of hyphae.
Spores narrowly elliptical, 6 × 12, straight, pale colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 841.#]

In Cuba I made abundant collections of this species. It grew in patches
from the thin bark, usually on the branches of a dead tree. I do not
know the name of the tree, but I think it was only on one kind, one of
the few softwood trees of Cuba. Camillea Sagraena is undoubtedly a
common species in the American tropics. It has never been well
described, and the white tissue of the interior lower half, which is a
very rare occurrence in similar black, carbonous plants, has never been
noted. A "new genus" might be based on this feature. It is quite fragile
and the broken bases as shown (Fig. 839) are often all that remain of it
when old. Camillea surinamensis as named by Berkeley from specimens from
Surinam, type at Kew, is exactly the same species. Berkeley does not
record it from Cuba, but from Nicaragua, and the specimen is supposed to
be illustrated by Ellis in his plate 38. It may have been the plant, but
if so, it was so inaccurately drawn that it would never be recognized.
In addition to my abundant collections from Cuba, I have a scanty
collection also from Cuba from E. B. Sterling.

[Illustration: #Fig. 844.#  #Fig. 845.#
               Camillea Bomba. Fig. 844 on bark; Fig. 845 on hard wood.]


CAMIILLEA BOMBA (Figs. 844, 845).--Plants globose, sessile, 4-6 mm. in
diameter, black, smooth, without any disc. Dehiscing by irregular
fracture. Stroma hollow on the interior (Fig. 846 ×6) filled with a
brown powder, composed of spores mixed with abundant hyphae remnants of
the perithecia and asci. Spores 6-7 × 10-12, elliptical, pale colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 846.#]

This seems to be a frequent species in tropical America. I collected it
in Cuba and have specimens from Miss Barrett, Jamaica, and L. J. K.
Brace, Bahamas. The latter specimens grew erumpent from thin bark, and
the broken bark forms a kind of cup at the base of the stroma. A thin,
black mycelial stroma underlies the bark. Those I collected in Cuba were
somewhat larger, and more irregular. Some grew in same manner, erumpent
from thin bark and the broken bark forms a kind of cup at the base of
the stroma, others on the naked, hard wood and grew more compact. In the
latter case the black stroma at the base was thicker and more in
evidence. There is no question but that Camillea Bomba is cogeneric with
Camillea Sagraena, but the gleba of the latter consists almost entirely
of spores, while in the former there is considerably more hyphae
remnants than spores.


CAMILLEA GLOBOSA (Fig. 847).--Plants densely caespitose, sessile,
globose, black, smooth. 7-8 mm. in diameter. Opening by irregular
fracture. Stroma hollow, filled with a brown mass of spores and hyphae
remnants. Spores elliptical.

Léveillé named this from a specimen from Tolima, Columbia, South
America. The type Fig. 847 is all than is known to me. Léveillé spins a
long story about it having spores borne on filaments, merely a wrong
deduction, I think, from his having found filaments (of the perithecia
walls?) mixed with the spores. Saccardo, who evidently did not take much
stock in Léveillé's story, omitted the species, suggesting that it was a
form of Camillea turbinata. Saccardo's conclusions were almost as bad as
Léveillé's.

We have not examined any specimens of Camillea globosa, but suspect a
section would show two divisions of the gleba, as in the next. In fact,
with the exception of the stipe, it appears to be the same plant, and
abundant collections may show them as only sessile and stipitate forms
of the same thing.

[Illustration: #Fig. 847.#]


CAMILLEA POCULIFORMIS (Figs. 848 and 849).--Plants caespitose,
stipitate, globose or obovate, smooth, black, 8-15 mm. in diameter.
Stroma somewhat flattened at apex, opening circumscissally[2] or
breaking irregularly. Stipe 8-10 cm. long, 2-3 mm. thick, black. Stroma
hollow, the interior in two divisions, a narrow layer above, the fertile
portion with a few spores in abundant, hyphae remnants, the lower
(corresponding to the sterile base of a Lycoperdon) of matted hyphae.
Spores short, elliptical, 9 × 14, pale colored, scantily found.

[Illustration: #Fig. 848.# Camillea poculiformis.]

[Illustration: #Fig. 849.#]

The pulverulent mass is rather firm, and remains after the peridium
breaks up. Camillea poculiformis was named Corynelia poculiformis in
Weigel's old exsiccatae, about a hundred years ago. It came from South
America. Years later Montagne published it as Hypoxylon poculiformis,
and Léveillé as Phylacia poculiformis. I can not trace it from Fries'
writings, though no doubt Fries had it and doubtless named it. The old
specimens of Weigel's exsiccatae are found in most museums of Europe,
and all the publishing has been done on this one collection. I have a
nice collection (Fig. 848), made by T. J. Collins in Guatemala.


SPECULATIONS.

    The scanty knowledge we have of the real structure of this group
    of plants leaves much to speculation. They are all evidently
    closely related plants, and I think best classified under one
    general head, or genus, Camillea. They are quite different from
    the Hypoxylons of the temperate region, although we do not
    question that the tropical species are included in Saccardo
    mostly under Hypoxylon. When we come to compare what little we
    know of the species we find several differences on which
    "genera" could be based, and no doubt will be in time. In the
    original sense, Camillea might be restricted to the two
    cylindrical species, C. Leprieurii and C. Bacillum.

    Then we have the short, cylindrical or globose forms with
    persistent or semi-persistent perithecia, Camillea Labellum, C.
    Cyclops and C. turbinata with the intermediate species C.
    mucronata. The above will form one, or two, genera, according to
    taste.

    In the following plants we find no perithecia in the ripe
    specimens, hence of course they will in time be considered a
    genus. We believe there are two distinct differences between the
    few species we know, corresponding with the old ideas of Bovista
    and Lycoperdon in the puff balls. Camillea Sagraena and C.
    poculiformis, with two divisions of the gleba, a fertile and a
    sterile portion, and Camillea Bomba and C. globosa (?) with
    homogenous gleba. The species Camillea Sagraena differs from the
    other in having the fertile portion composed largely of spores
    (scanty in others) and in having part of the sterile portion of
    uncolored hyphae. Of course, it will form a "genus." Thus the
    genus Camillea can be easily divided into five "genera" and we
    make the suggestion for the benefit of those engaged in breaking
    up the old genera, and proposing new names to which to add their
    own. Who will rise to the occasion?

       *       *       *       *       *




THE GENUS THAMNOMYCES.


This is included in Saccardo as part of Xylaria, but we feel is well
entitled to generic rank. It was proposed by Ehrenberg in 1820 for a
curious species collected in Brazil. The genus differs from Xylaria in
having the fruiting bodies on the ends of branches, which in one
species are dichotomous, or in the other two species sessile or
subsessile and borne on a slender rhachis. There are conflicting
accounts of the structure of these bodies. The original, by Ehrenberg,
represents them as hollow bodies, with the perithecia imbedded in the
walls. That also is as shown by Cooke and is the usual idea. Moeller, on
the contrary, represents each body as a perithecium, and our examination
confirms Moeller's view. If Moeller's account is true, as it seems to
be, it is a strong reason why Thamnomyces should not be classed with
Xylaria.

The usual Xylaria has a white, sterile, central portion known as the
stroma, bearing a carbonous crust. The perithecia are generally imbedded
in the outer portion of the stroma, the mouths opening through the
carbonous crust. The walls of the perithecia are carbonous, and
confluent with the crust. The genus Thamnomyces has a slender stem,
entirely carbonous. This seems to have been the main difference between
it and Xylaria in the old classification, but the character is
fallacious.

There are Species of Xylaria that have no white stroma. The stem is
slender and carbonous and bears the carbonous fruit bodies, superficial,
but sessile and globose. Fries proposed for these species, the generic
name Rhizomorpha, which Saccardo united with Thamnomyces as a section of
Xylaria. In my view it is an entirely different idea from Thamnomyces
and should form a section in itself in the genus Xylaria. There are
Several species like Xylaria scopiformis that intimately connect
Rhizomorpha with Xylaria.

We believe the genus Thamnomyces, in the true sense, embraces only three
species as follows:


[Illustration: #Fig. 850.#]

THAMNOMYCES CHAMISSONIS (Fig. 850).--Stem Carbonous, black, smooth,
repeatedly dichotomously branched, the ultimate branches bearing ovate,
acute fruiting bodies. Structure of these bodies shown by Moeller is
entirely carbonous, hollow, each forming a single, carbonous
perithecium. Spores shown by different authors as of different shapes
and sizes. In our specimens they are 9 × 20-28 mic., dark, and arctuate.
They closely resemble the ordinary Xylaria spore.

This was originally named from Brazil by Ehrenberg, who gave a good
illustration of it. It has therefore escaped all synonyms, excepting by
Cooke, who discovered it was a new species and called it Thamnomyces
dendroidea. Hennings also discovered it from Africa, first as a new
variety, then as a new species, Thamnomyces camerunensis, but of course
everything that came to Hennings must be "new" something. It grows on
rotten, hard wood, and does not seem frequent in our American tropics.
In Africa, however, I judge it is more abundant as numbers of African
collections are in the museum at Berlin. We have only received it once,
at nice specimen (Fig. 850) from R. H. Bunting, Gold Coast, Africa.


[Illustration: #Fig. 851.#]

THAMNOMYCES CHORDALIS (Fig. 851).--Stem long, slender, several
proceeding from a common base, entirely carbonous, black, smooth.
Fruiting bodies (or perithecia?) sessile along the stem, ovate, with
slender apices, black. Spores oblong, arctuate, dark.

This, I believe, is only known from tropical America, but is apparently
not rare as it is recorded a number of times, mostly from Brazil. Fries
named it from French Guiana in 1830 and gave a characteristic
description of it. A co-type with the fruit mostly gone is at Kew. Later
Montagne got it also from French Guiana and gave a good figure and
description under the name Thamnomyces rostratus. He thought it was
different from Fries' species on account of the spores not being
globose, but the "globose" spores of the original description is
doubtless an error. The plants are surely the same. As Montagne's figure
is characteristic, the plant when subsequently found has usually been
recorded under his name. We present in our figure both Montagne's and
Fries' type.


[Illustration: #Fig. 852.#]

THAMNOMYCES FUCIFORMIS (Fig. 852).--In general appearance, this is the
same as Thamnomyces chordalis, but a much larger plant. The fruit
bodies (perithecia?) are more slender and are short, stalked. Our
figure, which is about half the spike, will show exactly the difference
between the two species. The plant was named by Berkeley from specimens
collected in Brazil by Spruce, and to this day is only known from this
old collection. The name is from the habits, "those of a fucus rather
than a fungus," a far-fetched comparison, for my impression is there are
no fuci that are carbonous, or have much resemblance to this plant.


RELATED PLANTS.

The following plants are compiled in the section Thamnomyces in
Saccardo. None of them are true Thamnomyces, and most of them could go
into Fries' genera Rhizomorpha. I do not believe, however, it is
possible to keep Rhizomorpha separate from Xylaria. The type species
Xylaria setosa is quite different from the normal type of Xylarias in
having entirely carbonous, filiform stems and superficial perithecia,
but both of these features merge into Xylaria through so many
intermediate species that there is no drawing the line of demarcation.


[Illustration: #Fig. 853.#]

XYLARIA SETOSA (Fig. 853).--Stem densely fasciculate, filiform, black,
entirely carbonous. Perithecia ovate, sparse, rarely developed. Spores
(teste Fuckel), ovoid, dark, 10 × 16 mic.

This is a rare plant in Europe, growing on old sacks, matting, carpets,
and similar refuse. It is generally found in cellars. I think it is not
known on wood nor recorded in the United States. It resembles carbonized
horse hair and was called "horse hair usnea" by old Dillenius. Our
photograph of the specimen at Kew will give a good idea of it, although
from the account it grows erect, and is not matted. Both Bulliard and
Sowerby gave characteristic figures, both from plants growing in
cellars, on old mats. It has had a great number of names, and is
recorded in Saccardo as Xylaria hippotrichoides, the specific name
proposed by Sowerby and used by Persoon. Some very recent juggler, I
have forgotten who, dug up the old name setosa, which I adopt as being
less cumbersome. Occasionally these jugglers do propose some improvement
in names, and I believe in encouraging them, when their wonderful date
dictionary discoveries are really better names. Saccardo gives the
following synonyms: Sphaeria hippotrichoides, Ceratonema
hippotrichoides, Hypoxylon loculiferum, Rhizomorpha tuberculosa,
Cryptothamnium usneaeforme, Rhizomorpha setiformis, Chaenocarpus
setosus, Chaenocarpus Simonini. The date expert must have had quite a
job.

    Xylaria adnata as described by Fuckel (Rhizomorpha adnata), and
    unknown to me, is evidently very similar to the preceding plant,
    but grows closely adnate to rotten beech wood.

    Xylaria fragilis (Rhizomorpha fragilis) is imperfectly known
    from old records in Europe. It is probably same as above.

    Xylaria hispidissima (Rhizomorpha hispidissima) from East Indies
    is known only from old description. It is an evident Xylaria and
    seems to be same as recently collected, adventitious in a hot
    house in Hungary, and distributed as Xylaria hungarica.

    Xylaria annulata, described in 1820 from West Indies as
    Thamnomyces annulatus and unknown otherwise, reads like
    Thamnomyces chardalis, but the branches of the latter are not
    known to be "annulated under a lens."


[Illustration: #Fig. 854.#]

XYLARIA ANNULIPES, described and figured by Montagne as Thamnomyces
annulipes from Brazil, is same as since named Xylaria marasmoides (Fig.
854) by Berkeley. Berkeley does not mention the rings on the stem as
shown so plainly in Montagne's enlarged figure, nor can I note them with
a lens on my photograph of Berkeley's or Montagne's types. Spegazzini
refers marasmoides as a synonym for annulipes, no doubt correctly.
Theissen refers it as a synonym for Xylaria aristata, an evident error.
Xylaria vermiculus, recently published from Brazil by Sydow, as
"Saccardo n. sp. in litt.," is, both from description and photograph,
evidently the same as Xylaria annulipes.


[Illustration: #Fig. 855.#]

XYLARIA MELANURA (Fig. 855), West Indies, described as Chaenocarpus
melanurus and compiled in Saccardo in section Thamnomyces, is evidently
same as Xylaria gracillima in sense of Berkeley and Montagne, but not I
believe as to Fries. We present a photograph made from Léveillé's
cotype.

    Xylaria axillaris was not compiled in Thamnomyces in Saccardo,
    but is evidently a very similar if not the same plant as Xylaria
    setosa, and is only known from Currey's original account from
    Africa. It is about a half inch high, with filiform stem, and
    few, superficial perithecia. Spores are given as 25 to 32 mic.,
    which are much larger than those of setosa.

    Xylaria patagonica as named by Crombie as Thamnomyces and
    compiled in Saccardo, Vol. 9, was based on Dillenius' old (1741)
    figure t. 13, f. 11, from Patagonia, which, as far as the figure
    goes, could be Xylaria setosa. Of course, nothing as known about
    it.

    Xylaria Schwackei, named by Hennings from Brazil, seems from
    description to be Xylaria melanura.

    Xylaria Warburgii, named by Hennings from New Guinea, seems from
    the crude figure to be Xylaria carpophila.

    Xylaria luzonensis, named from Philippines by Hennings, seems
    from crude figure to be Xylaria multiplex in original sense of
    Fries (not Thiessen).

       *       *       *       *       *




[Illustration: #Fig. 856.# Engleromyces Goetzei.]

THE GENUS ENGLEROMYCES.


Plants large, subglobose, with alveolate, sinuate carbonous exterior.
Stroma white, fleshy, 1½-2 cm. thick. Perithecia carbonous, forming
several stratose layers, imbedded in the stroma in the depressions.
Spores 12-15×18-24, dark, smooth, curved, agreeing with Xylaria spores.


ENGLEROMYCES GOETZEI (Figs. 856 and 857).--This is the largest
Pyrenomycete, and as far as known only occurs in Eastern, tropical
Africa. In 1900 Hennings described and named it, and there are several
specimens on exhibition in the museum at Berlin. Some years later (1906)
a specimen reached Paris from the same region. It was sent to the
anthropological museum at Paris, the collector taking it for a
fossilized skull. The reference to a skull is not inappropriate as will
be noted from our photograph (Fig. 857) from the specimen at Paris.
Patouillard, not knowing of course what Hennings had done at Berlin,
renamed it Colletomanginia paradoxa. Our figure 856 shows a section, and
the arrangement of the perithecia. Practically nothing is known as to
its habits. Patouillard states it occurs on the trunk of Abies, Hennings
on Bamboo. We feel that on publication of our photograph there will be
no occasion for further names for it.

[Illustration: #Fig. 857.#]

       *       *       *       *       *


FOOTNOTES:

    [1] Thus there is no doubt whatever in my mind that Camillea
        turbinata is Sphaeria caelata of Fries, but not knowing the
        Friesian species from specimens, I take the only sure name I
        know. Montagne refers it to Camillea poculiformis, but I do not
        think he knew more about it than I do, and I do not know anything
        excepting the "description."

    [2] So shown in one specimen on Fig. 848, but doubtful if it is a
        character of the plant.