TUBIFERA 205 



This very variable species has been well studied by Dr. Rex. See 

 Bot. Gaz., XVII., p. 201. In its simpler phases it presents but a 

 single layer of sporangia generally closely crowded together, some- 

 times free and even short stipitate! In the more complex phase the 

 sporangia are heaped together in a pulvinate mass in which the 

 peridia appear as boundaries of minute cells. In this case the outer- 

 most sporangia are often consolidated to form a cortex more or less 

 dense and shining. In any case the hypothallus is a prominent fea- 

 ture ; generally laminated and of two or three layers, it is in the more 

 hemispheric asthalia very much more complex, sponge-like. When 

 thin this structure is remarkable for its wide extent, 40-50 cm. ! The 

 simpler forms approach very near to Cribraria through C. argillacea. 

 The most complex remind us of Enteridium. 



This is Perichaena caespitosa Peck. In this country it has, how- 

 ever, been generally distributed as L. effusa Ehr. This author throws 

 some doubt on the species he describes by suggesting that the Plasmo- 

 dium may be red. The description, however, and figures are other- 

 wise good and are established by the usage of Rostafinski. The 

 Plasmodium has much the same color as the mature fruit. 



Widely distributed. New England to the Black Hills and Colo- 

 rado, south to Arkansas. California, about Monterey. 



2. Tubifera Gmelin 

 1791. Tubifera Gmelin, Syst. Nat., II., p. 1472. 



Sporangia tubular, by mutual pressure more or less prismatic, con- 

 nate, pale ferruginous-brown, iridescent, the walls thin, slightly gran- 

 ular, long-persistent ; dehiscence apical ; hypothallus thick, spongiose, 

 white or whitish; spore-mass ferruginous. 



This genus is easily recognized by the tubular sporangia, destitute 

 of capillitial threads, seated upon a strongly developed hypothallus. 

 The synonymy of the qase is somewhat difficult. It is possible that 

 Mueller's Tubulifera ceratum, Fl. Dan., Ellevte Haefte, 1775, p. 8, 

 may belong here, but neither the text nor the figures make it certain. 

 Neither he nor CEder, who gives us T. cremor in the same work, had 

 any accurate idea of the objects described. Gmelin's description of 

 Tubifera, II., 2, 1472, is, however, ample, and his citations of Bui- 



\ 



