the slightest structural relation to it. Massee afterwards brought out the genus 

 Matula, 4 and gave full account of its structure, basing it on the Ceylonese 

 species. Saccardo compiled it in a foot note under the Thelephoraceae, which 

 is rather a strange proceeding, if he believes Massee's account. I do not see 

 any grounds for not taking the genus Matula, unless it should develop that the 

 genus does grow in the United States, and that Artocreas Micheueri is differ- 

 ent from Michenera Artocreas. 



Fig. 229 



Fig. 231. 



Fig. 230. 



Fig. 228, plants natural size. 

 Fig. 230, cups enlarged x 6. 



THE GENUS MATULA. 



Fig. 229, section ol cup enlarged, from Massee. 

 Fig. 231, spores and section enlarged x 500. 



SPECIES. There have been two species of Matula proposed (assuming 

 that the plant called Artocreas Micheneri from the United States is the same 

 as Michenera Artocreas of Cuba). These aie Matula poroniaeformis of Ceylon 

 and Matula Rompelii of Brazil (published as Michenera Rompelii). From the 

 relatively scanty material that I have I can not say whether they are the same 

 or not, but they are very close. They have the same shape, color, size, struc- 



>The name is more appropriate than elegant. 

 391 



