ARTHUR: RELATIONSHIP OF GENUS KUEHNEOLA 505 
G., collected at Austin, Texas, October 31, 1909, Heald & Wolf 372. 
Since then they have been found on two collections of Malvaviscus, 
M. arboreus and M. mollis, from Guatemala. These three collec- 
tions are the only ones yet known to show telia for K. malvicola. 
All three collections show abundance of the telia, which agree 
in their appearance and form with the published description. 
The long filiform spore chains do not readily separate into single 
cells, even after germination. They spread apart, however, even 
to the hymenial point of attachment in the sorus, showing that 
there is no tendency to lateral agglutination. The walls are 
distinctly cinnamon-brown, and in this character, as well as the 
negative fact that pycnia are unknown, the species fails to accord 
with the species of Kuehneola on Rubus and Markhamia, but the 
agreement is so marked in the more essential characters, that the 
species may for the present be considered correctly placed under 
the genus Kuehneola. 
_ When telia on Gossypium were found by Mr. Orton in May, 
I9II, it was natural to suppose they would fall readily into the 
same genus as the other malvaceous form had done, especially 
as the characters of the uredinium were practically in agreement. 
Both species have delicate, uniseriate teliospores. In the Gos- 
sypium rust, however, the spores are adherent laterally, and the 
end: cells of all the spore chains fall away readily, producing a 
short columnar telium that becomes pulverulent at the extremity. 
In the form of the telium it simulates that of Cronartium, only 
being short, scarcely higher than broad, instead of being exces- 
sively long. The teliospores are colorless, not tinted as in K. 
malvicola. 
The telia of the Gossypium rust in color, habit of spores, and 
general form, agree well with those of Cerotelium, the only fully 
recognized species of which, C. Canavaliae, is on a fabaceous host. 
The uredinia of the Gossypium and Canavalia rusts are not unlike, 
except that the former has delicate, peripheral paraphyses, im- 
bricated over the sorus, most readily seen when still unopened 
while the latter has a delicate peridium of polygonal cells, also 
most readily seen in the unopened sorus. In both cases the 
uredinial envelope breaks away and becomes more or less evanes- 
cent after the sorus opens. 
