KupFER: STUDIES ON URNULA AND GEOPYXIS 141 
of Niessl’s figures are given in Rehm, /. c. 990. The asci are about 
124 # long and 6 » wide ; the spores, 11-12 4 long and 4-5 y# wide. 
The cross section of Uruula terrestris ( fig. 3) shows that here 
again there is no relation whatever with Urnula Craterium ; the 
tissue is entirley pseudoparenchymatous, the excipulum being com- 
posed of two layers. The few outer rows are composed of cells 
about 11 “in diameter with thick brown walls. The rest of the 
tissue is undifferentiated, so that we may call it excipulum with 
no marked hypothecium, or all hypothecium, restricting the term 
excipulum to these few rows of cells on the outside. Whatever 
we may call it, its character definitely separates it from a struc- 
ture such as is found in Urnula Craterium. An additional fact 
pointing to the separation of the two species is one to which both 
Rehm and Lindau attach great importance in classification. Iodine 
colors the ascopores of U. terrestris blue, but does not those of U. 
Craterium, 
Urnula terrestris as defined by Saccardo then, is not an Urnid/a. 
Niessl, in 1872, named the fungus Podophacidium terrestre, so 
that this old generic name, at least, we must restore. A point 
of interest, however, arises with regard to its specific name. 
In 1885 Boudier* established a genus Melachroia on Peziza 
+anthomela Pers. Schroter was the first to suspect the identity of 
the two fungi and called them Podophacidium xanthomelan. Rehm 
in his classification separates them, because the apothecium in 
Urnula terrestris splits into lobes, while in Melachroia xanthomela 
it remains nearly entire. In the letter before mentioned, however, 
Dr. Rehm says that he has no longer the least doubt that the two 
fungi are one and the same thing, and that the condition of the 
Margin of the apothecium in Urnula terrestris is due merely to 
local conditions of growth. This view is substantiated by a com- 
parison of the anatomy of the two forms. Dr. Rehm kindly sent 
specimens of both fungi which were sectioned as described above. 
The representation of Urnudla terrestris ( fig. 3) would do equally 
well for Melachroia xanthomela; the only difference revealed by 
the closest investigation was that the outer excipular portion was 
slightly thicker in the former fungus. This, however, may be 
regarded as purely accidental and of no significance. Consequently 
* Bull. Soc. Myc. 1: 112. 
