GEOGRAPHIC D1STKIBUTJON 



in the state. The list could easily be trebled by careful systematic 

 work. 



Bennett. Plants of Rhode Island, pp. 128. Providence, 1888. 



South Carolina. 



As before noted it was in this state that the earliest work on 

 American fungi was done. Later work by Ravenel has also been 

 noted; besides the following papers, very many of the fungi of 

 Ravenel' s two series of exsiccati were collected from the vicinity 

 of Aiken: 



Cooke. North American Fungi. Grevillea, n: 106-111. 1883. 



Describes twenty-seven species partly from South Carolina. 



Ravenel. Contributions to the Cryptogamic Botany of South 

 Carolina. Charleston Med. Jour, and Rev. 6; 190-199. 1851. 



List of 169 hymenomycetous Fungi. 



A list of the more common native plants of South Caro- 

 lina. South Carolina, Resources and Population, etc. 312-359. 

 1883. 



A list of thirty-five species of fungi, pp. 353-356. 



Thumen. Fungorum Americanorum, triginta species novae. 



Flora, 61: 177-184. 1878. 



Twenty-five new species from South Carolina. 



South Dakota. 



Extensive collections have been made by Professor T. A. 

 Williams, David Griffiths, and various students of the Agricultural 

 College, notably among parasitic species but comparatively little 

 publication has been made regarding local distribution : 



Williams. Notes on parasitic Fungi observed at Brookings 

 during the Summer of 1891. Bull. S. D. Exper. Sta. 29: 29-52. 

 1891. 



Notes on ninety-two species. 



Griffiths. Some Northwestern Erysiphaceae. Bull. Torrey 

 Bot. Club, 26: 138-144. 1899. 



Tennessee. 



We know practically nothing of the fungus flora of this state, 

 since neither mycologist nor collector has ever interested himself in 



