UTAH 193 



fungi. It is to be doubted if references to a score of species occur- 

 ring in the state could be found in the whole range of our litera- 

 ture. 



Texas. 



When area is considered, probably this state presents the best 

 example of a region practically unknown to the mycologist. 

 Ravenel collected a number of fungi in the state during a 

 single tour of exploration ; some of these were described by 

 Cooke, but many more, of which duplicates are in the Ellis collec- 

 tion, have never been reported. In addition to this the report of 

 a single series of parasitic species from the experiment station 

 constitutes our entire knowledge of the fungi of one of the most 

 interesting regions in the entire country-. 



Cooke. The Fungi of Texas. Jour. Linn. Soc. 17: 141-144. 

 1880. 



Descriptions of twenty-five species. 



The Fungi of Texas. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. i: 177 



187. 1878. 



A list of 149 species. 



Jennings. Some parasitic Fungi of Texas. Bull. Texas Agric, 

 Exper. Sta. 9: 23-29. 1890. 



List of ninety-five species from the state. 



Ravenel. Report on the Fungi of Texas. Rep. Comm. Agric. 

 on Disease of Cattle in L'nited States, 171- 174. 1871. 

 General account of fungi of the state. 



Utah. 

 Sporadic collections chiefly of parasitic species have been made 

 by Marcus E. Jones and S. J. Harkness most of which have been 

 sent to Mr. Ellis. A few have recently been described by Euro- 

 pean botanists. The field, however, is practically a virgin one 

 like the greater portion of the Rocky Mountain area. The fol- 

 lowing papers contain descriptions of L'tah species, and a few 

 others are scattered through our literature : 



Ellis. New species of North American Fungi. Bull. Torrey 

 .Bot. Club, 8: 64-66, 73-75, 89-91. 1881; g: 18-20, 73, 74, 98, 

 99, III, 112, 133, 134. 1882; 10: 52-54, 1883. 



Includes ten species from L'tah among many others. 



13 



