112 



ill ap]iearaii(t' of the c<ii'ti'x coat is due, I tiiiiik. to I'^llis" spccimeu heiiij; 

 older tliaii yours, and this coat having changed in drying. Your plant 

 was evidently collected in its prime and the natural cortex coat well pre- 

 served." On accouiil "t llie imtalilc iicridial characters of this ."species 

 tlie generic standing has been imcertain. It was originally descril>ed by 

 Ellis and Everbart as a Lycopcnlon and w.is lifted in Saccardo as a 

 Borisla. When Air. Lloyd i)ul)lislied his ■"(ienera of Ciastroinycetes"" (Bull. 

 Lloyd Library, Mycological Ser. No. 1) in 1*,)02 he i)rovided in his key for 

 a genus Jl ijpohlema separable from the genus Calvutia by the presence of 

 an inner membrane such as this s[)ccies possesses. On /'/. //, J'if/. .'/O, he 

 illustrates what he calls H juxihlcniu pnchyck i iiia. About a year later in 

 his Mycological Notes (No. 14. ]). 140, March, 1903) he described fully the 

 senus ]hi])f)hJrnia saying thai it was ba.^ed on Ijiicopenlon Iciiiiloiilicniiii. 

 .and referred to Ili/pohlcma Icpidophorum as the only species. Ilis earlier 

 use of the specific name pachyderwa was founded on the assumption that 

 it was a prior name for the same species. Further investigation, however, 

 convinced Lloyd that Peck's Lycuperdoji itiiclnKlcrnnnii (Hot. Gaz. 7:54. 

 1S82) was a distinct species, and he took up IcphhiitUoi urn as the specific 

 name under the genus name HiipohJciini. Somewhat later the views con- 

 cerning the validity of this genus were altered as is evidenced by a note 

 (footnote 13, p. 14, Index Myc. Writings, vol. 2) to the effect that he would 

 class Hypoblema as a subgenus under ('(ihalia. In a recent letter to tlie 

 writer Mr. Lloyd has again expressed the opinion that the species should 

 be refei red to Calralia. j\/or</(iii has already described the >pecies as a Ciil- 

 vatia, but as he was also mistaken in thinking Peck's /,. jnichy derma in was 

 identical he used the name Cnlvatia pdcliydcniia. This error was further 

 perpetuated by M(4lvaiiie (One Thous.-ind Aimrican I'miLii. \k r,<.'2) wlios(> 

 descri])tiou dearly coni'uses the two jilants. lUdieving with Mr. Lloyd 

 that the ])eridial differences jiresenti'd by this species can scarcely be 

 considered siiHicieiit for generic separation the coiniiination Calvatia 

 lepidophoi'u is here adopted as the proju'r desigiiat ion. Tlie type speci- 

 mens of Ellis and lOveiiiart's Li/coycnlnii Icpiddplioniiii were collected :\t 

 Huron, ISouthl Dakota, September, INSI, by Miss Nellie K. Crouch. .Vs 

 the Lafayette collection is the second known collection very little can be 

 said ab(Mit the ilistribution. It is e\ideiitly a ver\ r.ire species. P.otli col- 

 lections were made in Ihe aiituinii. XothiiiL;' w.is s.-iid .-diout the oriLciii.-il 

 habitat; ours was an open pasture with iiiiick soil. 



Aiiri'iillKiiil llriKihui III Sliilinii. I'lirdiic I nircrsil u. I dfiii/r.'/i . hid 



