REVISION OF ENDOGONEAE. 307 



are 120^125 ^, specimens received from Hesse by Ed. Fischer are 

 reported to be 115-125 X 70-90 ju, and in the large number of cases 

 reported by Bucholtz, the range of variation is 68-160 X 60-104 n. 

 The discrepancy is thus not so great as it might at first appear; al 

 though further examination may indicate that more than one specific 

 form is represented in this series. 



Although the occurrence of this species in America has not been 

 hitherto recorded, it appears to have been collected several times by 

 Harkness in California. Through the courtesy of Professor Abrams 

 of the Leland Stanford Herbarium, I have had an opportunity to 

 examine all the material of Endogone referred to by Harkness, (1899), 

 in his paper on Calif ornian Hypogaeous Fungi, including " E. lanata" 

 sp. nov., " E. microcarpa" Tul. and " E. macrocarpa" Tul. The 

 portions of these specimens communicated are similar in color and 

 appearance, and it would be impossible to distinguish either of them 

 by their microscopic characters from the eastern material above re- 

 ferred to. In all, the conjugating processes are clearly defined, and 

 the spore-envelope well developed. In the specimen marked " E. 

 macrocarpa" this is especially true, the flammenkrone, though not 

 as striking as in the best developed Hesse specimens, being clearly 

 present. The size of the spores in these Californian specimens is also 

 similar, the longer axis varying from 125 yu or less to 160 ^t: a range 

 similar to that reported for the European types. 



In a single specimen found at Kittery under beech trees, the gleba 

 is dark blackish brown, the color being apparently due to the fact that 

 a large amount of finely divided humus material is incorporated 

 throughout its substance, a condition seen elsewhere in E. multiplex 

 and a few other species. The zygospores differ somewhat in possess- 

 ing a somewhat roughened, smoky brown exospore, distinctly unlike 

 the yellowish wall of the ordinary type. It has not seemed desirable 

 to separate this form specifically, however, on the basis of a single 

 specimen. 



For further details in regard to E. lactiflua, the admirable and very 

 complete account of Bucholtz should be consulted. The possibility 

 should be borne in mind that the very variable series of forms now 

 included under this name may prove to represent more then one 

 species, when they become more thoroughly known, and their life- 

 histories have been traced. In the present state of our knowledge, 

 however, the use of a single name to designate them seems in every 

 way desirable. 



