182 Transactions British Mycological! Society. 
and in 1835 (40, p. 344) placed the Phacidiacei (including Glonium, 
Actidium, Hysterium, Phacidium, Rhytisma, and Leptostroma) 
in this class. The Dichaenei (including Actidium, Lophium, 
Ostropa and other genera) he left in the Pyrenomycetes, 
but noted “‘Transitum sistunt ad Discomycetes, sed discum 
verum non monstrant.” (Actidium he included in both groups.) 
In 1849 (41, pp. 367, 400) he maintained the same general arrange- 
ment. 
Mlle Libert (42) described Aylographum, and included it with 
Hysterium, Glonium, Actidium, etc., in the section Phacidiacei 
of the Xylomyci. Nees and Henry(43) and Rabenhorst (44) 
followed Fries. 
Corda (45,46) in 1842 gave the name Hysteriaceae to a family 
of his order Myelomycetes. The Hysteriaceae he subdivided 
into Stegiaceae (with Stegia), Hysteriaceae (including Ailo- 
graphum, Hysterium, Sporomega Corda, and Lophium), Glonia- 
ceae (with Hysterographium Corda and Glonium), Cliostomei 
(with Cliostomum and Actidium), and Phacidiei (including 
Phacidium, Heterosphaeria, and Rhytisma). Ostropa and 
Dichaena were placed in the Sphaeriacei. Spore characters were 
taken into consideration and several species were illustrated. 
De Notaris (47) in 1844 considered spore characters further and 
made these the basis of classification of the Hysteriaceae. He 
divided the family into two sections: Phaeosporii, with Tri- 
blidium, Hysterium and Hysterographium, and Hyalosporii, 
with his Gloniopsis, and ten other genera. As the title indicates, 
these fungi were considered to be Pyrenomycetes. 
Léveillé (48, p. 115) proposed Thécasporés as a division of Fungi, 
with subdivisions Ectothéques and Endothéques. The latter 
was divided into Tribes Rhegmostomés (including sections 
Hystériés and Cliostomés), Stégillés and Sphaeriacés. 
Bonorden (49) followed Corda’s classification. 
Berkeley (sc) proposed the name Ascomycetes for Léveillé’s 
Endothéques. He (sr, p. 379), however, followed Fries and other 
earlier workers in including Hysterium and other genera in the 
Phacidiacei. 
Duby (sz) in 1862 published his memoir on the Hysteriales. 
He considered that these fungi should be placed with the 
Pyrenomycetes for the following reasons: (1) the perithecia are 
horny or cartilaginous, (2) the perithecia are elliptical or linear, 
(3) they show a special method of dehiscence. He considered 
that the Hysteriales showed affinities with the Discomycetes 
(Pézizées) through Triblidium. Duby reviewed his previously 
stated ideas of their relations to, and differences from, the 
Lichens. He points out that Coemans had noted that the 
hymenium of the Hysteriales gives no reaction with iodine. 
