The Literature on the Classification of the Hysteriales. 183 
In discussing the value of diagnostic characters in the 
Hysteriales, Duby considered that de Candolle’s separation on 
the basis of superficial or imbedded, and de Notaris’ use of the 
colour of spores, were not of great value. Duby divided the 
Hysterineae into two sections, Lophiées and Hystériées, and 
made further subdivisions on the basis of dehiscence of asci. ' 
Under Lophiées he included Lophium as having dehiscent asci, 
and his new genera Ostreichnion and Mytilinidion as having 
indehiscent asci. In the section Hystériées he included Tri-' 
blidium, Hysterium, Glonium, Aylographum, Hypoderma, An- 
gelina, and Actidium with indehiscent asci, and Lophodermium, 
Sporomega, Coccomyces, Colpoma and Ostropa under dehiscent 
asci. Duby made a new genus Aporia, which he considered 
“anomalum et ambiguum.”’ He gave generic and specific de- 
scriptions of the various forms, and illustrated twenty-five 
species. His division of genera on the basis of dehiscence of 
asci has not been followed. 
The Tulasne brothers (53, Vol.1, p. 224; 1, p. 258; m1, p. 112) gave notes 
on several forms and illustrated one. In their classification they 
included the genera under Phacidiei. L. R. Tulasne(s4) also re- 
corded observations on the ‘“‘spermagonia”’ of certain Hysteria. 
Since 1865 there have appeared many works containing classi- 
fications, or revision of classification, of Fungi. Chevallier (33) 
had long since suggested a grouping which separated the 
Hysteriales from the Phacidiales, but Fries and many others 
had included the Hysteriales as a subdivision of the Phacidiales. 
Corda’s suggestion of reversing the terminology and including 
Phacidiei under Hysteriaceae had not been followed. De 
Notaris (47) and Duby(sz) had considered the Hysteriales as a 
distinct group, as did de Bary (55, pp. rgcete.). Fuckel (56, p. 248) and 
Cooke (57, p. 750) followed Fries and included the Hysteriales with 
the Phacidiales in the Discomycetes. In a later paper Cooke (58) 
followed Duby. 
Saccardo at first (s9) followed in general the classification of 
Fries for these fungi, but later (60) carried de Notaris’ (47) basis 
of classification on spore characters further and divided the 
Hysteriales into the Sections Hyalosporae, Didymosporae, 
Phragmosporae, Scolecosporae and Dictyosporae, placing them 
in the Pyrenomycetes. Spegazzini(61) elaborated further this 
idea in his “‘nova systematis carpologici dispositio,” and classi- 
fied the Hysteriales into Aplosporae, Didymosporae, Phragmo- 
sporae and Dictyosporae, each group being divided again into 
Hyalosporae and Phaeosporae. Thus, for example, the Aplo- 
sporae-Hyalosporae included the genera Aporia and Hypoderma. 
The Hysteriales he placed in the Angiothalamae (Pyreno- 
mycetes). In 1883 (62) Spegazzini proposed the Hemihysteriaceae 
