426 THAXTER. 



with other genera to which it might be supposed to be related. Subse- 

 quent writers have separated it from Hypocrea largely on the ground 

 that its spores do not, at maturity, separate into two distinct halves; 

 and von Hoehnel (1912), p. 380, remarks that it is merely a Hypocrea 

 with the spores of Nectria. 



Seaver, in his revision of the Hypocreales (1910 a and b) has also 

 included under Karsten's name two species, //. subcarnca and II. 

 consimilis, both with continuous spores, and also a third, //. tremelH- 

 cola, a fragment of which he has very kindly allowed me to examine. 

 This species is said to grow on TrcmeUa alhida; but there is no indica- 

 tion in the specimen what the nature of the substratum really is. 

 The perithecia are crowded in a crust like cottony stroma, and super- 

 ficially closely resemble those of Hypomyccs candicans. The spores, 

 however, are distinctly larger. 



If one considers the characteristics of the Type of Hypocreopsis, 

 its peculiar and very highly developed stroma; its characteristic 

 centrifugal development of thick radiating subdichotomous lobes; 

 its restricted perithecigerous area; its saprophytic habit and typically 

 didymous spores would, when taken together, seem to constitute its 

 most striking peculiarities. If one recognizes the validity of the genus 

 Podostroma (Podocrea), which, except for the fact that a somewhat 

 differentiated perithecigerous region is raised on a more or less definite 

 stalk, is quite indistinguishable from Hypocrea in all other respects, 

 the characters of Hypocreopsis above enumerated would seem to form 

 an even more satisfactory basis for generic separation. 



That the type is a distinctive one is clearly shown by the occurrence 

 of a second species, herewith descril)ed, which was first encountered 

 by the writer at Cullowhee during the summer of 1888, in the south- 

 western part of North Carolina, where a single specimen was collected 

 on a dead branch of Rhododendron maxwiwn; while somewhat later, 

 abundant material was found on the same host at Burbank, East 

 Tennessee, near the North Carolina l^order. In general habit, color 

 and appearance this fungus seemed indistinguishable from the type- 

 species; but an examination of the spores showed them to be so differ- 

 ent that it could not even be regarded as a variety. In both species a 

 series of narrow thick subdichotomously branching lobes, which when 

 turgescent are apt to be in close lateral contact, radiate from a com- 

 mon center, often with great regularity, adhering firmly to the sub- 

 stratum, except where an occasional branch is crowded out and grows 

 upward or over adjacent branches. The perithecigerous region is 

 confined to the upper, outer surface, and is progressively developed 



