480 W. C. Sturgis — Type- Specimens of Myxomycetes. 



matter above mentioned. It is equally, and for the same reason, dis- 

 tinct from the type-specimen of D. eximium, Pk. The question 

 then arises whether this feature is of suthcient importance to warrant 

 the erection of a new species. I should he inclined to answer affirm- 

 atively, were it not for one fact. The specimen of D. nigripes, Fr,, 

 distributed as No. 1393 in Ellis & Everhart's N. A. Fungi, though 

 scanty and partially immature, presents very similar features in its 

 capillitium. The bases of the threads are expanded in the same 

 manner and the threads themselves show similar fusiform expansions 

 in abundance. The contents of these expansions are of a violet- 

 brown color and are more homogeneous and less soluble in alkaline 

 solutions than in the case of the specimen distributed as J), eximium, 

 Pk., but there can be no doubt that both are analogous structures. 

 !No other specimen of D. nigripes which I have examined shows 

 them, and I can but conclude that, in this case at least, they are 

 abnormal structures of no taxonomic value. 



We have seen that Rex regarded Nos. 2089 and 2493 of the 

 N. A. Fungi as the extreme limits of a single, variable species. We 

 have further seen that Macbride is correct in referring No. 2089 to 

 D. xanthopus, Fr, The type-specimen of D. eximiuyn, Pk., is 

 almost identical with No. 2089 ; it certainly is in the direct series of 

 which Nos. 2089 and 2493 are the "extreme limits." But in my 

 opinion, as above expressed, there is no essential difference between 

 D. xanthopus, Fr. and D. nigripes, Fr., hence I must conclude that 

 Lister is correct in regarding D. eximium, Pk., as a mere variety of 

 D. nigripes, Fr. If Rex was correct in referring the very peculiar 

 form distributed by Ellis & Everhart as No. 2493 to D. eximium, 

 Pk,, it is certainly a very well marked variety and may yet prove to 

 be deserving of specific rank. The type of that species, however, 

 is not distinguishable from D. nigripes, Fr. (Z). xanthopus, Fr.). 



DiDYMiuM ANGULATUM, Pk., Rep. XXXI, p. 41, 1878. No type- 

 specimen of this species exists and the original description is not 

 sufficient to enable us to locate the species with anj- degree of cer- 

 tainty. Lister refers it tentatively to Didymium effusum, Lk., and 

 Macbride makes no mention of it. Lender these circumstances the 

 species should be excluded. 



Stemonitis Morgant, Pk., Bot. Gaz., V. p. 33, 1880. The type- 

 specimen of this species has been unfortunately^ stored away where 

 it is not at present accessible ; nothing definite, therefore, can be 

 said regarding it. Lister, on the basis of presumably authentic 

 specimens collected by Wingate and distributed in Ellis & Ever- 



