BULLETIN 



OF THE 



rORREY BOTANICAL CLUB. 



Vol. Vlll.l New York, August 1881, [No. 8. 



8 1. Notes on Gymnpsporangia. 



By W. G. Farlow. 



Since the publication of my paper on the Gymnosporangia of the 

 United States I have received several communications with regard to 

 the distribution of our species; and, as one of my principal objects 

 was to investigate the supposed genetic connection between the gen- 

 era Roestelia and Gymnosporangium^ any information with regard to 

 the distribution of the species of the two genera is of interest. At 

 the time when my paper was originally presented to. the Boston Nat- 

 ural History Society I had never seen specimens of Gymnosporangium 

 speciosum, Peck, described in the Botanical Gazette of October, 1879. 

 Recently I have received fresh material from Mr. T. S. Brandegee, 

 by whom the species was originally discovered on Juniperus occtde?i- 

 talisy in Colorado* The specimens received show fusiform swellings 

 of the branches and irregularly-flattened sporiferous masses oi the 

 pale yellow color usually seen in specimens of the genus which have 

 been expanded by rains and then dried. The species is evidently 

 closely related to Gytn, biseptatum and intermediate between it and 

 Gym. clavipes. It resembles the former in the distortions produced, 

 and in the general appearance of the sporiferous masses; and the 

 spores, although larger and on stouter pedicels, are frequently com- 

 posed of three cells as in Gym, biseptatiivi. The spores germinate at 

 the septum, and I have seen no case of germination at the apex as is 

 usual in Gym. davipes. Gym. speciostim should be added to the num- 

 ber of species enumerated in my paper, but its relations to any spe- 

 cies of Roestelia cannot, at present, be discussed because the myco- 

 logical flora of the Rocky Mountains is still too little explored. 



Some instructive specimens have also been received from Dr. J. 

 H. Mellichamp, collected at Bluffton, S. C, Amongst others, are 

 specimens which approach more nearly the true Gytn. fusaim of 

 Europe than any that I have examined from the Northern States. The 

 specimens in question were on Juniperus, Virginiana\ and, besides the 

 common globose form, there were two specimens in which fusiform 

 enlargements of the branches were formed, and the sporiferous 

 masses were quite similar to those found on junipers in Europe, 

 It seems probable, then, that what I have called Gym. fuscum, var. 

 glabosum^ is in reality merely a variety, and not a distinct species. In 

 passing, I would remark that all the specimens sent by Dr. Melli- 

 champ seem to indicate a more luxuriant development of the differ- 

 ent Gymnosporangia in South Carolina than in the case of the same 

 species when growing in New England. Thus, several specimens of 

 Gym, inacropus exhibit knots so large that the branch above is strang- 

 led, and the leaves distorted, whereas such is only very rarely the 

 case in Eastern Massachusetts. 



With regard to the prevalence of Gym. macropus in Illinois, Prof. 

 T. J, Burrill writes as follows: ''''Gymnosporangium macropus is very 



