1924] 
ZELLER & DODGE—LEUCOGASTER AND LEUCOPHLEBS 405 
Type: in Magyar Nemzeti Museum in Budapest (fide A. de 
Degen in litt.) not seen. 
Fructifications globose to irregular by the coalescence of several 
fructifications, smooth with surface foveolate, 1-5 em. in diam- 
eter, yellowish white, becoming fuscous; peridium thin, at first 
white and glistening, then ochroleucous, gelatinous to waxy; 
cavities subglobose to polyhedral, larger in the center of the fruc- 
tification, filled at first, becoming empty; basidia pyriform, 4- 
spored, not in a distinct layer; spores sessile, spherical, ochraceous, 
blunt echinulate with thick yellow reticulations, gelatinous sheath 
smooth, 16-18 y in diameter. 
Under Picea, Bartfeld, Czechoslovakia. August. 
From a study of Hazslinszky’s material, Hollós thought L. lio- 
Sporus was a synonym of this species. He did not see any of 
Hesse’s material of L. liosporus, and we prefer to recognize both 
hames until we have seen authentic material of both. Theabove 
description is a condensation of a translation from Hollós and 
should be used with caution, as Hollés seems to have conflated a 
description based on Hazslinszky’s material with Hesse's descrip- 
tion of L. liosporus. From the above description the present 
species seems more closely related to Leucophlebs candida Harkn. 
LEUCOPHLEBS: 
Leucophleps Harkness, Cal. Acad. Sci. Proc. Bot. III. 1: 257- 
259. 1899; Fischer in Engler & Prantl, Die Nat. Pflanzenfam. 
І. 1**: 557. 1900; Saccardo & Sydow in басе. Syll. Fung. 16: 
251-252. 1902.—Leucophlebs Roumeguére, Rev. Myc. 22: 83. 
1900. 
The type species of the genus is considered to be Leucophlebs 
magnata Harkness. Harkness did not definitely designate the 
type species but he probably had in mind L. magnata, for that 
Species is followed by “gen. nov. et sp. nov.," while the other 
Species which he included in the genus are followed by “р. nov. 
only. Тһе international rules do not cover this case, but canons 
14 and 15 of the “American” code? and article 7g of the recom- 
‘Spelling corrected by Roumeguére, Rev. Мус. 22: 83. 1900, in accordance 
with international rules. 9 
2 Nomenclature Commission of the Botanical Club of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science. American code of botanical nomenclature. Torr. 
t. Club Bull. 34: 167-178. 1907 (see p. 172-173). 
