1891.] North American Hyphomycetes. 19 



Rkopalomyces candidus Berkeley & Broome, 1. c. p., 96, No. 505, PL V, fig. 3. 



IlaplotriiJium fimetarium Riess in Fresenius Beitr. z. Mycol., Ill, p. 105, 

 Taf. XIII, figs. 59-65. 



Oedocephalum fimetarium Saccardo, Sylloge Fung., IV, p. 48. 



Rkopalomyces eervinus Cooke, Grevillea, Vol. XII, p. 27. Ravenel, Fung. 

 Amer. , 574. Ellis N. A. F., No. 658. 



Aleuria asterigma Vuillemin Ass. Franc, p. l'Avan. d. Sci. Congres d. Nancy, 



Aug. 1886, Vol. XV. PL X. 



Clear white, becoming brownish yellow to fawn-colored. 

 Sterile hyphae creeping, septate: fertile hyphae erect, simple 

 or once dichotomously branched. Fertile heads nearly spher- 

 ical to obovoid, more or less distinctly areolate, 20-30// in 

 diameter. Spores oval or elliptical, sometimes slightly rough- 

 ened toward the apex, 6— 10 X 4-1 6/f, 



On old paper, decaying wood, dung of various animals, 

 etc. Mass., Conn., N. Carolina, Europe. 



This species occurs very commonly on laboratory cultures 

 as well as old paper in refuse heaps. In one instance only I 

 have found it covering the under side of a charred and de- 

 caying log in shady woods, with its fawn-colored fructification. 

 The form on dung which corresponds to, the Haplotrichum 

 fimetarium of Riess, is usually smaller than the others, as far 

 as I have observed, the spores not often reaching the length 

 (10.7/i) given by Fresenius; and usually measuring about 



Sp. or less. 



The synonymy of the species is somewhat confused, yet 

 that given above is I believe correct. Through the kindness of 

 Mr. Massee. to whom I am <rrea 



ipalomyccs palli 



dus B. & Br., the identity of these two supposed species is 

 established beyond question, R. candidus having been based 

 upon the different appearance which distinguishes immature 

 from the mature individuals of R. pallidas. Again, Haplo- 

 trichum fimetarium Riess is separated by Fresenius from A'. 

 pallidas merely on the ground that its head showed no 

 areolation. Since, however, this character is quite unrelia- 

 ble, being distinct or invisible, according to the condition of 

 the head when examined, it cannot possibly be considered as 

 a valid reason for keeping the t wo, distinct. As a matter of 

 fact the heads of the form on dung are often distinctly areo- 

 late. As Costantin has pointed out 1 , the conidial form associ- 



'Les Mucedinees Simples, p. 39. 



