479] MELIOLA IN PORTO RICO — STEVENS 11 



There is quite a striking similarity between the hyphopodia upon 

 the three species with 3-septate spores. They are of the same general 

 size and contour, large and irregular. 



1. M. puiGGARH Speg. 



Fungi Puiggariani. No. 228. 

 On Rubies sp. Fig. 1.^ 



El Alto de la Bandera, July 15, '15, 8650, July 14, '15, 8270. 

 Maricao, July 20, '15, 8893. 



. No other species has been reported upon the Rosaceae. The form 

 agrees well with the descriptions and with a type specimen. No. 2722, 

 received from Dr. Spegazzini, though the perithecial appendages are 

 nearly twice as long as stated. See also under M. manca. 



2. Meliola manca Ell. and Mart. 



Amer. Nat. 17 : 1284, 1883, and Jour. Myc. 1 : 148, 1885. 

 On Myrica cerifera L. Fig. 2. 



Manati, Nov. 23, '13, 5289, Nov. 25, '13, 5250. A collection by 

 Heller near Catano, Jan. 17, '03. 



In "Le Genre Meliola", Gaillard unites under 31. manca the three 

 species 31. manca, 31. sanguinea, and 31. puiggarii, giving a new de- 

 scription for 31. manca. This new description mentions larvaeform, 

 perithecial appendages. The original description of 31. manca by Ellis 

 and Martin mentions no such appendages, but does specifically state 

 that there are no perithecial appendages. My own material of two 

 collections is ample. I have studied it carefully, also a specimen of the 

 Heller collection and a specimen collected by Martin and distributed by 

 Ellis as N.A.F. No. 1292, all of these upon the same host. These speci- 

 mens all agree perfectly and agree with the original description. They 

 do not have larvaeform perithecial appendages and therefore do not 

 conform with the description as given by Gaillard. 



The specimens of Meliola which I -have found on Rubus agree well 

 with the description of 31. puiggarii. They have abundant larvaeform 

 appendages and cannot be placed under 31. manca. Moreover, both the 

 general characters of the mycelium and of the capitate hyphopodia 

 separate the forms on Rubus from those of Myrcia, the hyphopodia on 

 Rubus being much larger and more irregular in shape. I am forced 

 therefore, to regard the description given by Gaillard for 31. manca as 



^Figures accompanying this article are noted in connection with the host from 

 which they were made. 



