REVISION OF ENDOGONEAE. 313 



is considerably below that given by Bucholtz in his summary of the 

 spore measurements of twenty -seven European gatherings; which 

 includes no case in which the maximum is below 100 /i. When one 

 considers, however, that he gives a variation of the maximum diameter 

 in this summary between 112 fi and 230 /x, the smaller maximum of the 

 American material does not appear significant. 



The structure and character of the gleba is also subject to variation 

 which bears no evident relation to the size of the spores. The hyphal 

 matrix is thus c}uite loose in some individuals, and the spore origins 

 correspondingly conspicuous ; while in others it is as densely compacted 

 as in E. lactiflua, so that clearly recognizable spore-origins, though 

 readily made out, have to be sought for. Although Baccarini (1903) 

 has made this difference a basis for the separation of his E. Pampalo- 

 mona (vide infra), it hardly seems a sufficient specific distinction. 



Through the kindness of Dr. Dodge, I have had an opportunity to 

 examine three gatherings made by Mr. H. E. Parks in California: 

 No. 348 at Sai'atoga, No. 312 at Aldercroft Creek, and the third at 

 Guadalupe. All of these are unusually well developed. The largest 

 measures 15 mm. dry: the peridium is unusually thick, yellowish 

 white, with adherent humus material. The gleba is firm and dull 

 yellowish in the dry material, although dark brown in the alcoholic 

 specimens. The nearly spherical spores often reach the maximum of 

 230 fjL mentioned by Bucholtz, and the wall, which may reach a thick- 

 ness of 18 fjL, is traversed by radial canals (?) which, although they are 

 much less strikingly developed in a few other specimens examined in 

 which the walls are unusually thick, are here very numerous and 

 conspicuous, and appear to be associated directly with flattened 

 masses of oily material which adhere to the inner surface, and from 

 the middle point of which they seem to spring. In the absence of 

 intermediate conditions, this California form would be specifically 

 separated from the Eastern ones without question. It seems prefer- 

 able, however, as in the case of E. lactiflua, of which they may prove 

 to be the chlamydosporic condition, to include them under one name 

 until we know more about them. It must be acknowledged, never- 

 theless, that the variations above enumerated may prove too great to 

 justify this procedure, and it is possible that, as in the case of E. 

 lactiflua, in the light of further information, more than one species may 

 emerge from this rather too comprehensive assortment. 



I am indebted to Miss Wakefield of the Kew Herbarium for an 

 opportimity to examine a portion of the type of E. australis Berkeley, 

 from Tasmania. The spores are like those of E. macrocarpa, the 



