FUNGI OF TEXAS. 173 



orders, and a comparison with those of Rev. Dr. Curtis s North Carolina collection, the 

 only full catalogue published in the United States : 



Orders. 



Toxau. Fungi. North Carolina. Fungi. 



Xo. of sjjm es. Perceiitaye. A*o. of species. Perceiitaye. 



Hymeuoiuycetes 04 935 39 



Ascomycetes , 151 52 715 34 



Gasteromycetes 13 4 150 (5 



Hyphomycetes 20 9 IBS 



Coniomycctes 28 9 1541 II 



My whole collection amounts to three hundred and fifteen numbers ; but deducting 

 thirty, for species too old to be determined, and some represented under other numbers, 

 the whole number may be estimated at about two hundred and eighty-five good species. 



It will be seen by the preceding comparison that the Texan falls below the North 

 Carolina collection in relation to numbers of Hymenomycetes, an order which contains the 

 Agarics, Boieti, and other large and fleshy species very difficult- to preserve except in dry 

 weather. The number, however, which I saw were few, and I was impressed at the time 

 with the very few representatives of the order in Texas. Perhaps later in the season that 

 inequality would not have been observed. I was also surprised to find so few, compara 

 tively, of the entophytal coniomycetes which infest living plants, the rusts, smuts, bunts, &c. 

 This difference would also probably be less at a later period of the season, as it is mostly 

 toward autumn, when the seeds of grasses are maturing and the leaves declining, that they 

 are in the greatest profusion. 



Attention has been drawn in the last few years to the &quot;Texan cattle disease,&quot; and 

 much interest has been elicited as to the nature and cause of this disease. In the volu 

 minous and very able &quot;Report of the New York State Commissioners in connection with the 

 Metropolitan Board of Health of New York City,&quot; this subject has been very thoroughly 

 investigated, and one of the results which seem to be definitely reached is the constant and 

 universal presence in the blood and bile of the diseased animals of certain cryptogamic 

 forms of vegetation, (Micrococci and Qryptococci, so called,) primordial spores or cells, and 

 which, under the skillful manipulation of Professor Hallier, of Jena, have developed them 

 selves into a distinct fungus plant, which he names Coniothecium stilesianum, after the 

 distinguished microscopist on the New York board, who first discovered them. Professor 

 Hallier, in his letter of December 18, 1863, to Dr. Harris of the Metropolitan Board, says 

 in regard to the plant: &quot;Perhaps you may succeed in finding out the places where this 

 Coniothecium grows in nature. At all events, it is a parasitical fungus growing on plants, 

 and to be looked for in the food of the wild bullocks.&quot; 



Whether my examination of a limited portion of the flora of Texas, and comprised 

 in so short a time, will throw any light upon these interesting questions, I cannot tell. My 

 observations were made with as much diligence and care as I could command, and present, 

 as faithfully as I am able to give them, the true condition of the pastures and the crypto 

 gamic vegetation of the region of country visited. As far as I was able to examine, I 

 found no species of Coniothecium on pasture grasses or on the dried hay. This, I know, 



