ENTOMOPHTHOREAE OF THE UNITED STATES. 153 



show that these characters, as regards the formation of resting spores, are not snfR- 

 ciently distinctive. Yet I doubt if this proves to be the case; and, slionld it prove 

 otherwise, I believe that the subgenus should be separated as a genus from other Em- 

 pusae. 



Under EntomopWiora, which I have used in brackets as a subgenus, I have included 

 all forms characterized Ijy the production of typically digitate conidiophores; differing 

 from recent German writers in not considering this character of generic value, as well 

 as in omitting even as a subgenus the name Lamia given by Nowakowski to a single 

 form (^E. Oulicis). 



In his extended paper on Entomophthoreae,' Xowakowski summarizes the generic 

 distinctions of EinjJusa, Entomoplilliora and of his genus Lamia, as follows: 



1. E>jTOMOPHrtiORA. including ouispora, curvispora, conlca, and AphicUs. 



Ftivgiis groivth, one-celled or with lilaraentous branches. 



Paraphyses, rhizoids and columella, present. 



Conidiophores, branched. 



Resting spores, zygospores (three species), azygospores (two species). 



2. Lamia including the single form Culicis. 



Fuiigxis groivth, tilanientous. 



Puraphyses, present. 



Jihixoids m\d columella, absent (nie ma). 



Conidiophores, unbranched. 



Besting spores, azygospores (borne terminally). 



3. Empusa including Grylli, Freseiiii and Mitscue. 



Fungus groiuth, tilanientous. 

 Paraphyses and rhizoids, absent. 

 Columella, present or absent. 

 Conidiophores, simple. 

 Resting spores, azygospores. 



"Whether Nowakowski in his text gives more satisfactoiy characters for the genus 

 Lamia than are shown in the above table I am unable to say; but, from the data here 

 given, the presence of paraphyses (which I have appai-ently overlooked in examining the 

 species) is the single point which separates it from Empiisa as defined below it. The 

 opinion of Brefeld that the form should be separated as a connecting link between Em- 

 Tiusa and Entomo2)7itJt07-a,hased upon a tendency to a digitate type observable in the co- 

 nidiophores and upon the presence of rhizoids is more readily understood, yet singularly 

 enough, and erroneously I think, Kowakowski afiii-ms the absence of both these points 

 of sti-ucture. In my own opinion, E. Culicis cannot be separated from E. Muscae by other 

 than specific distinctions; the points of similarity of the two being decidedly gi'eater 

 than their points of difference. The same may be said of the two species subsequently 

 described as E. papillata and E. apicalata which bear somewhat the same relation to 

 E. Gri/lli that E. Ctdlcis does to E. Muscae; each having rhizoids and showing a slight 

 tendency, in the case of E. apimilata at least, to a digitate type of conidiophores. 



Taking the genus Entomopyhtliora, as defined by IS^owakowski in the same table, the 

 digitation of the conidiophores is apparently the only exclusive difference of importance 

 which separates it from Empusa. Even here E. Culicis and E. apiculala tend to break 



' I. c. B, p. 17G. 



