KUPFER: STUDIES ON URNULA AND GEOPYXIS 148 
very similar to a Geaster, so that Peck’s specific name is an 
appropriate one. Both disc and stem are covered on the outside 
with a dense tomentum of soft brown hairs. The thickness of the 
apothecium is a striking characteristic; it sometimes reaches 2.5 
mm. The outer layer of the apothecium is dark brown, the hyme- 
nium and flesh yellowish white ; the asci are very large, 670 y long ; 
the spores are 49-60 » long by 12-16 » wide. The Geaster-like 
appearance of this fungus, the tough, leathery texture, the thick- 
ness of the disc, and the velvety tomentum which clothes the whole 
surface,make of it an exceptionally characteristic and easily dis- 
tinguishable genus and species. That it is not an Uruu/a seems to 
me just as evident from its external appearance as from an exami- 
nation of its tissues. A comparison of internal characters shows, 
however, that there is no possible relation with Urnula Crate- 
rium. The tissue is made up wholly of large parenchymatous cells; 
those of the excipulum averaging 34 / in diameter, those of the 
hypothecium 10-14 w. The relative size of the cross sections of 
the various forms discussed can be seen from the fact that the 
Sections of Chorioactis Geaster are magnified only thirty-five times, 
while all the others were magnified about two hundred times. 
As to the position of Chorioactis, its entirely parenchymatous 
tissue will at once place it among the Pezizaceae. Following out 
Durand’s scheme, its stipitate character, the tomentum and its 
elliptical spores indicate a relationship with Plectania and Sar- 
coscypha in this family. The genus Chorioactis will probably prove 
the most leathery in the whole family, but a comparison with 
Sarcoscypha and Otidea in this respect shows that among the Pezi- 
zaceae are to be included all gradations from a most fleshy brittle 
character, as in the Majority of pezizaceous forms, to a texture 
as tough and leathery as that in the Cenangiaceae and other 
families. 
To sum up briefly, then, the points brought out in this paper : 
1. Urnula Craterium Fr. represents an entirely distinct genus 
not in any way related to Geopyxis. It is very probably to be 
placed in the family Cenangiaceae while Geopyxis is a member of 
the Pezizaceae. 
2. Urnula terrestris (Niessl) Sacc. is not at all allied to U. Crate- 
rium and must consequently be removed from this genus. It is iden- 
