

both shapes. I had supposed that the variance in shape constituted the 

 difference between these species. If they are not distinguished by these 

 forms, I do not think it will be practicable to distinguish them. Mr. 

 Hard's plants are smaller than usual, but it is very difficult to maintain 

 a species on a question of size. 



PHALLUS RAVENELII A form ivith a long veil Mr. M. E. 

 Hard, Chillicothe, sent me a photograph 

 ( Fig. 168) of a phalloid which I consider 

 only a form of Phallus Ravenelii with a long 

 veil. Several years ago I received exactly 

 this same plant from F. J. Fitzpatrick, Iowa, 

 and sent specimens to Professor A. E. Burt, 

 who had then recently written a paper on the 

 American phalloids. It was his opinion then, 

 as it is mine now, that it should be referred 

 to Phallus Ravenelii. Usually this species has 

 a short veil hidden under the pileus, and for 

 that reason a "new species" might be based 

 on Mr. Hard's plant. I am afraid, however, 

 that like many of the "new species" proposed, 

 it would in time become very embarrassing 

 for the author. The relative length of the 

 veils of phalloids is a varying factor, and 

 while this seems to be an extreme variation, 

 I do not question that when our phalloids are 

 observed that we shall find all degrees of 

 connecting lengths. Except as to the length 

 of the veil, Mr. Hard's photograph represents 

 Phallus Ravenelii exactly. There would be 

 no objection to a separate name to indicate this long-veiled form, but 

 we should prefer that some one else would propose it. 



LYSURUS BOREALIS (Fig. 169). This plant was introduced 

 into American mycology under the name Anthurus borealis, the genus 

 Anthurus being considered in the sense as found in Fischer's recent 

 works. I am convinced from the investigations that I have made that 

 this is an entire perversion of the correct meaning of the genus, and 

 that our American plant does not belong to the genus Anthurus in the 

 sense of the author of the genus. It was Kalchbrenner who proposed 

 the genus Anthurus. He represented his plant as having a tubular. 

 flaring stem, (see fig. 170) ; the limb of the tube divided into lobes. It 

 can well be compared to the corolla of a monopetalous flower, such as 

 the corolla of a tobacco plant. I am aware that Kalchbrenner was a 

 very uncertain authority, and moreover I have never seen a phalloid 

 belonging to the genus Anthurus in the sense of Kalchbrenner. But I 

 do not believe it is correct to take his genus in an opposite sense unless 

 it can be proven that no plants exist like Kalchbrenner 's figun.-.- 



Fig. 168. 



2 For note 2 see page 352. 



350 



