68 TWENTY-NINTH REPORT ON THE STATE MUSEUM. 
intended as a correction of that mistake, the word “frequently ” being 
simply an additional idea. The latter appears to me to be the most 
natural interpretation. He does not mention the particular species 
in either case, but from the context it appears that the Caladium, 
real or supposed, was our present Peltandra glauca, and the Arum, 
-our Peltandra Virginica. However this may be, the fungus inhab- 
iting the latter plant was regarded as Schweinitz’s species until Dr. 
Howe described it under the name Uromyces Peltandre, and thus 
indicated more correctly its generic relations. He subsequently sub- 
stituted the specific name Avz- Virginici for Peltandre, but the law 
of priority works badly in this case, for the oldest name, Caladiz, is 
manifestly inappropriate and was discarded by Schweinitz himself, 
and against the other there is, in the minds of some, an objection 
because of its compound character. Uromyces Pontederie Ger. is, 
according to specimens received from Mr. Gerard, on Peltandra leaves 
_and not distinet trom U. Peltandre. 
Until recently the Uromyces inhabiting the leaves of Avisema 
triphyllum was considered specifically the same as the one on Pel- 
tandra leaves. Dr. M. C. Cooke has separated a form of this, in 
which the sori are clustered in spots, under the name Uvromyces 
Ariseme. I am satisfied that this is not specifically distinct from 
the other form in which the sori are more evenly scattered over the 
whole surface of the leaf. There is no constant difference in the 
spores, and both forms manifestly run into each other in habit. Nor 
is there, in my opinion, any just ground for the separation of either 
from U. Peltandre except perhaps as a variety, for the only appreci- 
able differences I find between them are now and then a spore in the 
form on Peltandra leaves which slightly exceeds in size any that I 
find on Ariseema leaves and a greater tendency in the former to occu- 
py the lower surface of the leaf, while in the latter there seems to be 
a greater tendency to occupy the upper surface. But both are fre- 
quently amphigenous in habit. I regard the following as the syn- 
onymy of the species : 
Uredo Caladii Schw. Synopsis Fung. Car. No. 480. 
Uredo Ari-Virginici Schw. Synopsis N. A. Fung. No. 2839. 
Uredo “ “ Ray. Fung. Car. Exsic. Fasc. IV. No. 96. 
Uredo “Curtis Cat. N. C. Plants, p. 122. 
Uredo S N.Y: Cab. Rep-:, 23; p: 57. 
Uromyces Peltrande Howe. Bull. Torr. Club. 1874, p. 3. 
Uromyces Ari-Virginici Schw. ‘ Fi es mo Up. 43: 
Uromyces Pontederie Ger. ‘‘ fe oe 1875, p. 31. 
Uromyces Ariseme Ck. Ag & s « p. 82. 
Uromyces LEsPEDEZ# Schw. 
All our species of Lespedeze are subject to the attacks of this 
fungus. The form that occurs on Z. capitata usually has the spores 
and their pedicels a little longer than in the other forms and it was 
reported as distinct under the name U. macrospora B. & C., but I am 
now satisfied that it is unworthy of specific distinction. The form on 
