eye, but has narrow spores 6-7 x 18-24. Xylaria haemorrhoidalis 

 from Ceylon, also similar to the eye, has very large spores, 10 x 25-40. 

 We have a suspicion that Xylaria tuberiformis will finally be found 

 to be depauperate Xylaria castorea. 



THE GLAUCESCENSE OF HEXAGONA PORES. 



From some freshly collected specimens of Hexagona speciosa, 

 recently received from P. van der Bijl, South Africa, I solved what 

 was to me a mystery when I wrote the Hexagona pamphlet (cfr page 

 4) ; why some pores of Hexagona are glaucescent and others are not. 

 The glaucescence is the hymenium. It is probable I would have 

 found that out before if I had taken the trouble to section the pores. 

 The hymenium of brown Hexagonas of the tropics seems to be developed 

 irregularly or perhaps disappears from old specimens. I have eight 

 specimens of Hexagona Pobequini, mostly old, and only a few pores 

 of one specimen are glaucescent. 



A section shows the white hymenium forming a uniform layer 

 over the brown hyphae tissue. It consists of a palisade layer of 

 obtuse club-shape basidia, in the specimen examined apparently 

 young basidia, for I found no sterigmata nor spores, and each had a 

 large, globose nucleus, suggestive of young basidia. 



RARE OR INTERESTING PLANTS RECEIVED 

 FROM CORRESPONDENTS 



PSEUDOCOLUS ROTHAE, FROM J. B. CLELAND. AUS- 

 TRALIA. We present a photograph (Fig. 1012) of the dried speci- 

 men which gives some idea of the 

 plant, but a photograph of the fresh 

 plant is much desired. \Ve present 

 also a photograph (Fig. 1013) of the 

 same species dried, from A. Yasuda, 

 Japan. 



In this connection we call the 

 attention of our Australasian friends 

 to the fact that the following phal- 

 loids, well authenticated in these 

 countries, have never been satisfac- 

 torily illustrated and that photo- 

 graphs of the fresh plants are spe- 

 cially desired, Pseudocolus Rothae, 

 Pseudocolus Archeri and Clathrus 

 pusillus. 



Dr. Cleland considers Pseudocolus Archeri to be the same plant 

 as Anthurus aseroeformis, as illustrated in our Phalloid Synopsis, 

 Fig. 46. There is a discrepancy somewhere, for the plant we received 

 from W. G. Gardner (Note 86) is surely not the plant of our Fig. 46. 



POLYPORUS PALUSTER, FROM S. H. BURNHAM, 

 NEW YORK (Fig. 1014). In our Apus Polyporus we referred to 

 this plant incidentally on page 383, but did not include it in the body 



679 



Fig. 1012. 



Fig. 1013. 



