106 



to Wiscoiii^in siieoies. Mi>r.ucan and Lloyd, both residents of r)hio, liave cov- 

 ered not only Iheir own region but have made their studies more genei'al. 

 Lloyd has extended his observations to various parts of the world. 



No special study of Indiana .species has Ijeen made. In 1S03 Undei'wood 

 listed twenty-tliree si>ecies iu the Report of the Botanical Division of the 

 Indiana State Biological Survey, pu))lished in the Proceedings of the 

 Academy for ls!)3. pp. IS-CT (1S94). rresumably this includes all that 

 were Icnown to him in the state at tliat time. No additions were made 

 either by Underwood or Arthur in their supplementary lists in the Proceed- 

 ings for 1S96. JU'ddick inentims four species in a iiajier in the 32d Annual 

 Report of the Department of Geology and Natural Resources of Indiana, 

 10U7, but none of them are additions to the T'nderwood list. Van Hook 

 has published two lists of Indiiuia fungi. (Mie in the I'roceedings of the 

 Indiana Academy for 1910, pp. 2<tr>-212 (liHl i. and another in the I'roceed- 

 ings for 1911, pp 347-3r»4 n912>. which include references to .seven species, 

 only two of which were not in the jirevious lists. This makes a total of 

 at lea.st twenty-five species wlii<!i have been reported for the state through 

 the Academy. F<tr the most part these ars' small or moderately small 

 foi'ms. It is certain that this is not a complete record but no effort has 

 been made toward an exhaustive search of the literature. A^arious refer- 

 ences to Indiana species occur in the writings of Morgan, liloyd, Mcllvane, 

 and others, and st far as known to tlii' writer several additional species 

 may I>e mentioned. 



A medium-size<I sjiec-ies (4-8 cm. in diameter) said by Lloyd to occur 

 in Indiana, but .ipparently not mentioned in any of the Academy records, 

 is BorislcUa ()]ti<nsiH. This jilant was twice collected in the vicinity of 

 Lafayette in Octolier, 1912, once by Mr. Ilenrj- Meigs and once by Prof. 

 V. R. Orton and the writer. In the former collection, which was only 

 about half mature when brnught in. the iieridia rangetl from 5-8 cm. in 

 diameter. Lloyd especially mentions a robust specimen in the Ellis herb- 

 arium (now at the N. Y. Botjjnical Garden) which he says was collected 

 by Gentry in ndiana. This sjxHimen is about 10 cm. in diameter but ac- 

 cording to Lloyd it rarely occurs so large. While the si»e<:'imens collected 

 by Mr. Meigs do not o(pial the Gentry specimen in size they appear to ap- 

 proach it more nearly than usual. The specimens taken by Orton and the 

 writer are consideral)ly weathered but appear to have l)een of ordinary size, 

 4-6 cm. in diameter. They comi)are very favorably with Lloyd's Figs. 5 

 rnd c. Plate 8<;. accompanying his Mycological Notes. No. 23 (1906). A 



