61 



Tulosa. The host-plant, however, is Enonymus japonicus and not a 

 conifer, and the material very scanty; hence i\n{il collected again 



and further examined it seems advisa"ble to leave the plant as 

 A. "paradoxa. 



H. paradoxa^ suLsp. cliilensis^ Sacc- and Syd* The type of this 

 shows a typical Atichia structure, but the plant is distinct from 

 A. paradoxa in its stellate form. It is allied to A. Tonduzij Mang* 

 et Pat., but differs in the much smaller propagula, which are 

 roughly spherical and measure 14-17 /i diameter. It is apparently 

 distinct from all other species, and may be named A, chilensis^ 

 sp. nov. The fungus described by Neger ('06) as being a stage in 

 the life-history of Antennaria scoriadea, and alluded to by von 

 Hohnel, must be referred to here. The description of the gela- 

 tinous star-shaped bodies, and of the clusters of spores comparable 

 to those of C oniothecium was strongly suggestive of the present 

 genus- Prof. Neger favoured Kew with the loan of authentic 

 material, and from this it is evident that the plant is not A. 

 chilensis^ as might have been supposed, but a distinct and probably 

 new species having the habit of A, glomerulasa but with different 

 and larger propagula. The propagula are very scarce in the 

 material forwarded, and insufficiently developed for a more 

 definite statement to be made. 



Two other fungi, or rather two other forms in the so-called life- 

 history of certain species, should likewise be placed in Atichia. 

 The species of Capnodimn described by Bernard ('07) have been 

 the subject of comment by more than one writer. Thus Yuilleman 

 (Comptes rendus, t. 146, p. 307), rightly points out that certain 

 fungi described by him as stages in Capnodium stellattiTn, Bern., 

 and C. javanicum, Zimm., are entities, and clearly represent 

 Seuratia. The type specimens of these two plants are at Buiten- 

 zorg and have not been examined. Being Javan plants one would 

 be inclined to refer them to A. Millardetiy which Raciborski states 

 is a frequent epiphyte in that region, but the propagula suggest 

 rather A. Tonduzij though they do not entirely agree with that 

 species. These two plants must be left' for future enquiry, as 

 from the description and figures it is not possible to determine 



their specific identity. 



Saccardo's suggestion {Syll. xxii. p, 769), that his genus Actino- 

 nomma may possibly find a place here has not been investigated, 

 as the Kew specimens are insufficient for the purpose; but the pre- 

 sence of numerous hairs on the thallus is not in agreement with 

 the plants we have been considering, and indicates a different 

 affinity. This concludes the survey of the AtichiaA\ke: fungi. It 

 is possible that other species or spore-forms which have been 

 described will ultimately be found to belong to the present genus, 

 but the above includes all those that have so far been detected. 



With regard to the position of the genus great difference of 

 opinion has existed. After its removal from the Collemaceae it 

 was placed in a special family next to the Myriangiaceae by Raci- 

 borski, in the Capnodiaceae by Patouillard, in the Saccharo" 

 mycetes by von Hohnel, whilst Yuilleman regarded it as the type 

 of a distinct family in the Perispor tales. Though not closely allied 

 to any other family this is perhaps the most convenient position 



