success. I think they barely paid the cost of production. But it is 

 gratifying to know that they involved no loss, for when Paul Klinck- 

 sieck had the courage to undertake their production in this expensive 

 manner, he assumed the risk of a heavy loss. 



I feel that Paul Klincksieck should be accorded all due honor for 

 producing in such a superb manner the "Icones Mycologicae" of 

 Boudier. 



ANOTHER "FUNGUS." GONE WRONG. 



Our figure 385 represents a growth that occurs on the living branches 

 of the Southern cypress (Taxodium distichum). I was glad to get specimens 

 from S. C. Edwards collected in North Carolina, for I wanted to investigate 



its nature. I have seen it in the her- 

 barium of Schweinitz, at Philadelphia. 

 Schweinitz first called it Merulius Cup- 

 ressi. In his next work he called it 

 Cantharellus Cupressi, and he sent it to 

 Fries, and Fries called it Cyphella Cup- 

 ressi, and it so appears in Saccardo, vol. 

 6, page 674. Berkeley stated many years 

 ago that it was an insect gall, but Sac- 

 cardo did not seem to believe him, for 

 he compiled it among the fungi. 



From a cursory examination of 

 Schweinitz's specimens I could not de- 

 cide what it was, though I felt quite sure 

 it was neither a Merulius, Cantharellus, 

 nor Cyphella, as it figures in our fungal 

 "literature." Upon receipt of these 

 specimens from my correspondent, I was 

 glad to be able to cut them open, and 

 it did not take me long to decide that 

 Berkeley was right, and that it is an 

 insect gall, for the cellular structure is 

 quite different from that we find in 

 fungi, and in addition I found on the 

 inside of each specimen a little orange 

 grub. I sent specimens to Mr. Mel T. 

 Cooke, who makes a special study of 

 the galls, and he advises me as follows : 

 "There is but one species of gall re- 

 ported on Taxodium distichum, and I 



have specimens of that species. It is entirely different from the one you send 

 me. The gall which you send is of insect origin without doubt, and apparently 

 belongs to the genus Cecidomyia." 



It therefore appears to be a "new species" of gall. As it is an "old species" 

 of fungus, does the name hold good? I think our learned law-makers are 

 silent on this point, though they give their "authority" to maintain just as bad 

 blunders of the old mycologists, as, for instance, Calvatia "cyathiformis" and 

 Geoglossum "rufum." Professor McGinty proposes to name it Cecidomyia 

 Cupressi (Schw.) McGinty, according to celebrated "legal" principles. 



Unnecessary Information. Dr. Bruce Fink recently published a list of 

 Boletaceae, which he informs us were largely determined by Murrill. As twenty- 

 two out of the twenty-seven names have Murrill's name written after them, it 

 was scarcely necessary to go to the trouble of stating who determined them. 



Fig. 385 



497 



