138 KUPFER: STUDIES ON URNULA AND GEOPYXIS 
During the next forty years three additional species were placed 
in the genus—U. minor Fries, 1855, from Guinea, U. Harti 
Berk. from Greenland and U. Microcrater (Hazs.), from Hungary. 
As no material representing these species was available they are 
left out of consideration in the present article. 
In 1889 Saccardo compiled descriptions of the existing species 
and added as a fifth, U. ¢errestris (Podophacidium terrestre Niess}). 
Saccardo’s description of the genus was broad enough to include 
all five species.* 
Rehm in his ‘‘ Discomycetes ” 1896+ perceiving a lack of re- 
lationship among the species of Saccardo, did what must be con- 
sidered an utterly unwarranted step. Taking away from Urnula 
the type Urnula Craterium on which Fries had founded the genus, 
he reserved the generic name for the single species, U. zerrestris, ap- 
parently unrelated to the former fungus ; so that Rehm has a genus 
Urnula consisting of a single species which has no resemblance to 
the type of Fries, and which accords in but a very general way with 
the Friesian description. Urnula Craterium he transfers to Geo- 
pyxis. It may be mentioned here parenthetically, that Lindau’s 
treatment in Engler-Prantl { need not be specially considered as 
he has adopted almost entirely Rehm’s views and classification. 
A letter to Dr. Rehm asking the reason for his transfer received 
a somewhat unsatisfactory reply. He answered that Urnula 
Craterium was placed with its related species under Geopysis, be- 
cause Geopyxis was established by Persoon before Urnula by 
' Fries ; and that in order to retain the genus Urnu/a, under which 
Saccardo had placed Podophacidium terrestre of Niessl, he (Rehm) 
restricted the genus to this latter fungus. The two most essential 
points, however, were not answered. Why Urnula Craterium 
should be regarded as allied to Geopyxis, or why, except that 
Saccardo had placed it there, Podophacidium terrestre should be 
considered an Urnuda are points left unexplained. On this latter 
point, indeed, Rehm has now serious doubts as will appear later ; 
so that his present opinion seems to be that the genus Urnula 
must disappear entirely. 
* Sylloge Fungorum, 8: 548 seg. 
+ Rabenhorst, Krypt. Flora, 1: 971. 
t Die natiirlichen Pflanzenfamilien, 1: 172-242, 253. 
