Excluded Species. 201 



On living leaves of Li/lJini»i, Iii/ssopifolia L. 



Victoria — Near Mell)ourne, Oct., 1885 (Reader), 

 No specimen seen. 



This species was named D. punctiformis by Winter in 188(5, but there 

 was a Protomyces punctiformis determined by Niessl in 1872, which was after- 

 wards reduced by Schroeter to D. punctiformis in 1887. Since Winter had 

 given his specific name previous to Schroeter, De Toni in 1888 considered 

 it necessary and convenient to change the name of D. punctiformis (Niessl) 

 Schroet. to D. niessUi, and allow Winter's specific name to remain. 



However, Professor Magnus considers that the specific name must be 

 retained, independently of the genus in which the fungus is placed, ajid ac- 

 cordingly names Win.ter's species D. winteriana as above. 



EXCLUDED SPECIES. 



Some genera have been placed in this family whose affinities are doubt- 

 ful, such as C4rapliiola, and Cerebella, and as the balance of evidence is against 

 their inclusion, I have omitted them. Of course the species belonging to 

 these genera will also be excluded 



The smuts on Polygonum are rather peculiar, and it is not to be wondered 

 at that they have sometimes been wrongly placed. The unique Ustilago 

 emodensis of Berkeley was supposed to be represented in Australia, but the 

 species mistaken for it is now shown to belong to the monotypic genus Melan- 

 opsichium. 



The only other case worthy of special note is that of a supposed new 

 species of smut found by Berkeley on maize. He named ajid described it as 

 Tilletia epiphylla, although he observed its rust-like character, but a care- 

 ful examination of a portion of the original material shows that it is a well- 

 known rust. 



It is rather interesting to observe that the first determination of this 

 species was the correct one, for Mr. Bailey, F.L.S., Colonial Botanist of 

 Queensland, wrote to me as follows, in 1893 : — " In the year 1878 the maize 

 about Brisbane was infested with a Uredo, which Messrs. Berkeley and 

 Broome determined to be Uredo maydis DC. After this, these two specialists 

 found thi'^ maize fungus to he a new Tilletia, and described it as Tilletia 

 epiphylla B. and Br" 



1. Ustilago cesatii F. v. W. = U. rahenhorstiana Kuehn, the name given 

 by Cooke in his Handbook to the smut occurriiig on Paspalum scrohiculntum, 

 but on examining a portion of the original material forwarded to Coolce, it 

 is found to be a Sorosporium, and is now named S. paspnli. 



2. Ustilago destruens Schlecht. is given by l)oth Cooke and Massee as 

 occurring on native species of Danthonia. but an examination of portions 

 of the original material shows that it is a dift'erent and, in fact, a new species, 

 Ustilar/o readeri Syd. 



U. destruens Schlecht. is considered to be a synonym of U. panici-miliacei 

 (Pers.) Wint., and siuce this has been determined as a Sorosporium, the dis- 

 tinction from the one occui'i-ing on Danthonia is decided. 



Sorosporium panici-miliacei (Pers.) Takash. has been found on species 

 of Panicum, so that it is only excluded here from l)eing wrongly determined 

 on Danthonia. 



