Studies in Entomogenous Fungi. T. Petch. III 
in the tropics, the distinction fails when the specimens have 
originated in temperate countries. 
The Tulasnes noted that in their perithecial specimens from 
Florence, Rabenhorst 262 and 269, the conidial stage was rare. 
In the specimens in Herb. British Museum and Herb. Kew, 
Rabenhorst 262 is apparently entirely perithecial, while Raben- 
horst 269 contains the conidial stage, as well as immature peri- 
thecia. The latter is*a poor development, the scales being 
scattered, not crowded as in other specimens from Florence. 
Although Rabenhorst stated, in the description which accom- 
panied the specimen, 262, “‘ascos non vidi,” it contains mature 
perithecia, and from these it is evident that the species is identical 
with that described from Ceylon by Berkeley and Broome as 
Nectria aurantiicola. 
The conidial stage in Desmaziéres 1350 will be described later. 
But the specimens also contain perithecia, and these are identical 
with Sphaerostilbe fammea Tul. 
Sphaerostilbe flammea differs from Nectria aurantiicola both 
in its perithecia and its ascospores. Consequently, Sphaerostilbe 
coccophila Tul., according to the specimens cited by the Tulasnes, 
consists of the perithecial stage of one species and the conidial 
stage of another. The Tulasnes named their species on the 
assumption that Desmaziéres’ fungus was the same as that from 
Florence. But Mzicrocera coccophila Desm. is the conidial stage 
of Sphaerostilbe flammea, not of Sphaerostilbe (Nectria) aurantii- 
cola. 
The synonymy quoted above (p. 110) is correct in that Nectria 
aglaothele and Nectria subcoccinea are identical with the species 
issued by Ravenel as Nectria muscivora; but they are not 
identical with the perithecial stage of Sphaerostilbe coccophila, 
though their conidial stage is Microcera coccophila. Nor are they 
identical with Nectria aurantiicola or Nectria coccidophthora. 
It might be suggested that, as the perithecial stage of Sphaero- 
stilbe coccophila is identical with Nectria auranttiicola, the latter 
name should be discarded. It would, however, still be necessary 
to retain Microcera coccophila for the conidial stage of Sphaero- 
stilbe flammea, and the use of the same specific name for the 
two different stages of two different, though closely allied, 
species would undoubtedly lead to confusion. Moreover, it is 
quite certain that the Tulasnes’ name was chosen on erroneous 
grounds. 
One is loth to propose the abolition of a name which has 
been so widely employed in the literature of economic mycology. 
On the other hand, this reluctance is tempered by the knowledge 
that the name has usually been wrongly applied. Sphaerostilbe 
coccophila Tul., as it stands at present, is a compound species, 
