95 
whom I sent my specimens) adds, “indeed unexpected.” I beg to 
call the attention of botanists to it, that we may learn whether the 
peculiarity exists elsewhere, and, if so, to what extent. 
Henry GILLMAN. 
Derroit, Michigan. 
$ 99. New Species of American Fungi, by F. von Tuten. 
Corticium fumigatum, Thm. nov. spec.—C. amphigenum, late 
effusum, adglutinatum, membranaceum, tenue, e fusco-fumosum, 
ambitu concolore, similari; hymenio nudo, rimoso, expallescente, 
sicco, fumoso, subpruinoso, subpapilloso, papillis sparsis, rotunda- 
tis, minimis. 
Newfield, N. J. in ramulis aridis Caryae, Vere 1875. Leg. T. B. 
Ellis. (no. 2247.) 3 
Corticium rubrocanum, Thm. nov. spec.—C. amphigenum, late 
effusum, membranaceum, tenue, e pallide isabellino, canum, ambitu 
concolore, vix pallidiore, glabro; hymenio sicco, glabro, subrimoso, 
rigido, cano, non papilloso. 
Newfield, N. J. ad Quercus coccineae ramos emortuos, Vere | 
1875. Leg. T. B. Ellis. (no. 2248.) 
Diatrype disciformis, Fr.,vur. Magnoliae, Thm.—Differt disco 
' vix convexulo, minore, atro, ostiolis indeterminatis a forma europaea. 
Asci, sporiadiaque non diversa sunt. : 
Newfield, N. J. in ramulis emortuis Magnoliae glaucae. Vere 
1875. Leg. T. B. Ellis—Thiimen, Mycotheca universalis, no. 359. 
Ustilago Fimbristylis, Thm. nov, spec.—U. sporis simplicibus, 
plus minusve globosis, vel pauci irregulariter rotundis, vel sphaeri- 
cis, haud raro ellipsoideis, pauci pellucidis, episporio Jaevi, non 
punctato, tenui, 12-14 mm. in diam., fuscis. 
Virginia (sine loco) in seminibus maturis Fimbristylis autum- 
nalis, R. & 8. Leg ?—Com. Baron Ferd. von Mueller, Melbourne, 
Victoria. 
§ 100. Phaseolus multiflorus.—In a note on Josselyn, p. 108, 
Professor Tuckerman identifies Cornuti’s American bean with 
“ Phaseolus multiflorus, L.”” When citing this note, in a letter 
quoted in the Butierty (p. 87), I overlooked the error of attribu- 
ting the species to Linneus. Professor Tuckerman points it out, in 
the Buxterin for May (p. 91), observing that “ Willdenow who, 
and not Linnzeus, was the author of P. multiflorus, founds the latter 
directly on Cornuti’s plant.” Is there any reason for giving Will- 
denow a species named and described ten years earlier by Lamarck ? 
In the Encycl. Methodique (Botanique, iii. 70), published in 1789, 
Lamarck claimed as his own “ P. multiflorus, Haricot multiflore, ou 
d’Espagne.” Willdenow, in 1800, adopted Lamarek’s specific name, 
copied his authorities, and referred to him for more ample descrip- 
tion of the plant (Sp. PI., iii. 1030). Sprengel names Lamarck as 
the author (Linn. Syst. Veg. iii. 254). As to the question of iden- 
tity, I must still doubt. Cornuti’s “ faseoli fabre Greece modo, sud- 
rotundi and nigri, nec nitida cute obducti sed obscura,” do not seem 
to belong to our P, multiflorus. J. H. Trumpvtt. 
Hartrorp, June 19. mati 
