write a treatise on music, and I do not know one note from another. Th:- 

 was collected by Thozet (722) and the specimen is stilt at Berlin, 

 published it iGrevillea, 1874) as Scleroderma strobilinum, although he should 

 known it was not a Scleroderma, had he known much about the unateU 



he gave it a good specific name. Afterwards Kalchbrenner got into - 

 Cooke, to whom he sent a number (mostly little frustules) of iht 

 This particular specimen I did not find at the Kew Museum. 



Under the joint name of Kalchbrenner and Cook. \: 

 mostly Cooke), these Australian fungi were rehashed in GreviH 

 sequent issues) and in this paper the plant is called Phellorina st 

 correctly classed. 



In 1887, Cooke got a young specimen from the Ehirling Rivei 

 although he had correctly named the plant seven years before, he d 

 a new species and called it Xylopodium ochroleucum. ! 

 name, gave an excellent figure (Fig. 155, plate 16) in the Handb- 

 the microscopic characters which were all incorrectl'. 



In 1886, Forquignon, who seems to have been a protf 

 at Dijon, France, wrote a little work which he entitled "' 

 rieurs," with a chapter on "genres exotiques." As all he k 

 figures prepared by Quelet, and probably never saw a sp 

 life, naturally he discovered some wonderful "new genvra' 

 based on a figure that no one to this day knows any 



When De Toni compiled the seventh volume of Sarcardo 

 bilina in Forquignon's genus and called it Areolaria strobilina. 

 "species," and no two of the three belong to the same genus. 

 Engler and Prantl puts the species back in Scleroderma. \vhere i* 

 and gives an "original" figure which looks very much li'^e a p r 

 has no resemblance, however remote, to this plant. Cooke i 

 very peculiar bodies that he calls "allantoid, sporiform corp 

 where he got the idea, for there is nothing whatever in the 

 suggest them even. But Cooke, as I have often remat i ,, wa> a 

 in drawing things that do not exist. 



The specimen sent by Miss Duthie was collected in Rhodesia, 

 men of a very similar plant, and possibly the same, has '.e 

 States and called \Vhetstonia strobiliformis. It appears to differ, howe< 

 permanent cells in the gleba. (Cfr. Mycological Notes, page 270.) 



ALEURODISCUS VITELLINUS 



FROM M. R. ESPINOSA, CHILI! 



We adopt the above name for the plant as it is perhaps th< 

 of several genera to which it has been referred. At the same ti 



think it is better in Cyphella, thoug 



widely differs from the main character o( 

 i^fej^ both genera. A "new genus" should be made 

 ^ Ij^B f r it. an d it is a monutypic genus, as no sini- 



^1 ilar plant as far as known occurs elsewfo 



JB ^^ than in Chile. The g---nus "Aleurodisr: 



^I^H H modern writers is only ,in artificial product, 



^^^B and includes all Basidiomycetes that have 



I ^^^^ large spores and large A more 



incongruous assortment could not be gotten 

 together. In the main Alcurodiacus arj 



btereums or Corticiums with no analogy to thi- plant either in appear- 

 ance shape or texture. Excepting under the microscope this plant 

 resembles a Peziza in flesh, form and habits 



736 



