70 TWENTY-NINTH REPORT ON THE STATE MUSEUM. 
Peziza Sotenta Ph. 
One author has referred this species to Peziza Hupatorii Schw. In 
establishing the species I depended upon the accuracy of Schweinitz’s 
description, and in justification of my present opinion of the validity - 
of it I quote the full description of P. Hupatoriz, italicizing those 
parts not applicable to P. Solenza. 
“P, EuPATORII L. v. 8., versus radices in maximis caulibus emor- 
tuis Eupatorii purpure: et maculati, Bethl. 
P. gregaria, cupulis bi-vel tri-linearibus, madefactis explanatis, 
disco subconvexo, margine fere obliterato. Siccitate connivens, sed 
non clausa, est hee pezizula rufo-carnea, extus pilis nigrofuscis apice 
albescentibus fasciculatim obsita.” 
FP. Solenia is not collected near the roots of the stems, but occurs 
more or less abundantly all along them even to the upper part. I 
have seen it on stems of Hupatorium ageratoides only, never on £. 
purpureum or its variety maculatum. The cups, instead of being 
two or three lines, are less than one-fourth of one line broad. The 
largest cups that I have seen do not exceed this measurement even 
when moist. In the moist state the cups become somewhat swollen 
but they assume no shape that could be called “explanate” or flat- 
tened. Even after long soaking the mouth still remains small and 
contracted, the disk, instead of being ‘“subconvex,’’ is still deeply 
concave, and to say that the margin was “ almost obliterated ” would 
be very far from the truth. The flesh and hymenium are whitish and 
the hairs are not fasciculate. Thus it appears that our plant differs 
in almost every respect from the description of P. Hupatori ; in 
habit, habitat, size, shape, color of flesh, etc., agreeing only in being 
connivent in dryness and in having an external covering of similarly 
colored hairs. Unfortunately, Schweinitz did not describe the fruit 
of his species so that the comparison can be carried no farther. But 
it does not seem necessary. No ordinary degree of variability in the 
species and no reasonable allowance for mistakes in the description 
would harmonize so many and so great discrepancies. 
Hetorium rousinum Pk. 
This is thought by some to be the same as Peziza cupressina, 
and doubtless there is a close resemblance between them. Had the 
latter plant been placed in the genus Helotium instead of Peziza, I 
should have regarded them as one species myself. 
SpH@RIA VERBASCICOLA Schw. 
I have never seen this plant bearing the fruit of a Spheeria, but 
have seen the perithecia filled with a multitude of small elliptical 
hyaline spores .00016’—.0@018’ long. The species should therefore 
be considered a Phoma until it is found with the fruit of a Spheeria. 
SpH#RIA SARRACENIA Schw. 
Fertile specimens of this plant indicate that it belongs to the genus | 
Spheerella. 
