LYCOPERDACEAE 141 



Lloyd. Myc. Works, pi. 6, figs. 1-7. 



Masscc. Journ. Bot. 26: pi. 282, fig. 6 (as Bovista). 1888. 



Morgan. Journ. Cin. Soc. Nat. Hist. 14: pi. 5, figs. 4-9. 1892. 



596". On mossy bank of branch, November 6, 1922. 



6092. In pasture below Cobb Terrace, partly submerged, June 14, 1923. In fresh, nearly grown con- 

 dition; basidia in various stages of development. 

 7117. On ground in the drug garden, Sept. 10, 1923. Spores warted,4-4.8M thick. 

 7246. On ground in Arboretum, March 18, 1924. Very small specimen, only 5 mm. wide. 

 Also Nos. 5969, 5974, 5980, 6007, 7109, 7115, 7507, 8151. 



Asheville. Beardslee, coll. 



"Mountains." Buckley, coll. (Curtis Herb.). 



South Carolina. Greenville. Sept. 1926. Coker, coll. (U. N. C. Herb.). Spores 3.8-4.2 M . 

 Virginia. White Post. Dodge, coll. (N. Y. B. G. Herb.). 



New Jersey. Newfield. Ellis, No. 3600. (N. Y. B. G. Herb.) Spores minutely warted, 3.7-5/i. 

 Ohio. Norwood. Lloyd, coll. (N. Y. B. G. Herb.). Spores 3.8-4.4m, sometimes with a short pedicel. 

 Nebraska. Atkinson, coll. (N. Y. B. G. Herb.). Spores 3.6-4.5/1. 



Disciseda subterranea (Peck) 



Plates 80 and 118 



We have not seen this in the immature condition and have collected it only once. 

 As it appears in herbaria, it is usually of larger size than D. circumscissa, but individuals 

 may be smaller than the average in that species. The size of the plant is therefore not 

 a constant distinguishing feature, and the larger spores (5.5-9.5/z) must be finally relied 

 on for determination. The present species was described from Dakota and seems to be 

 common in the middle and far west (see Lloyd, Myc. Notes, p. 122; Morgan, 1. c, p. 

 143). We have a good specimen from Denver, Colorado (Bethel, coll.), and have also 

 seen a specimen from Canada kindly sent us by Dearness. These plants are about 

 1.8-2.8 cm. broad, subspherical or depressed; in the Canadian plant the outer peridium 

 covering about one-half of the inner; in the Denver plants forming only a disk opposite 

 the mouth. 



Our collection from North Island, South Carolina, is apparently the first collection 

 from the southeastern states. As this station invades the territory of D. pedicellata, 

 which was plausibly separated from this species by the different regional distribution 

 and pedicellate spores, confidence in a real specific difference is distinctly reduced. 

 We can now make out no difference between the last two except the presence of a 

 conspicuous and persistent pedicel on the spores of D. pedicellata. The North Island 

 plants are smaller than the Denver and Canadian specimens and, like the former, are 

 not at all or scarcely depressed and retain only a small, sandy, basal pad representing 

 the outer peridium. Both the Denver and South Carolina specimens, as well as Rav- 

 enel's Xo. 15 (D. pedicellata) at Philadelphia, show several small openings in the inner 

 peridium in addition to the apical one. These may be due to insects but appear 

 natural. 



As Petri gives the spores as only 4.5-5.3^, it is doubtful if he had this species. 

 Disciseda verrucosa Cun. (Lycoperdaceae, etc., p. 205) should be compared with this 

 species. From the description it is very close if not the same. 



