404 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [DECEMBER 
points out that the stroma of the parasite is completely merged with 
that of the host, and that only the upper clavate part of the host 
bears perithecia, while the stem is free or bears the conidial form. 
Some very discriminating observers, however, have dissented 
from TULASNE’s interpretation of the dual nature of the fungus, 
though no proof has been brought forward to demonstrate either its 
parasitic nature or its autonomy. CoRNu?° as early as 1878 collected 
several specimens on decaying leaves of Abies picea in a forest in the 
environs de Pontarlier. He searched diligently for specimens of 
Clavaria pistillaris of which he says Clavaria ligula is like a reduced 
form. He found none in the neighborhood of the H ypocrea alutacea, 
nor could he find any evidence that it grew either as a parasite or 
saprophyte on insects or on any subterranean fungus. Although 
he cannot say with certainty, he does not think the plant can be 
regarded as a parasite or that it develops at the expense of Clavaria 
ligula. He regards it rather as analogous in habit and nutrition to 
species of Xylaria which grow, some on wood, others on leaves and 
humus, and he cites an exotic species X. compuncta Jungh., as resem 
bling in some respects the Hypocrea alutacea, the plant being aluta- 
ceous to pallid, but dark punctate from the perithecia. 
In 1894 SCHROETER,?! a keen and discriminating student of the 
fungi, also took issue with the prevalent theory that Hypocrea alutacea 
was a parasite on Clavaria ligula. He says that this is not the 
case with the forms which grow in Schlesien. He says the fungus 
grows on wood as ALBERTINI and SCHWEINITZ have pointed out, 
and as he himself has observed at Breslau, while Clavaria ligula 
grows on needles of conifers. LixpAu?? also in his treatment of 
the Hypocreales follows SCHROETER’s judgment rather than that of 
TuLasNE and WINTER. Fartow?3 records collecting H , aad 
alutacea at Shelburne, N. H., under Pinus strobus where Was also 
growing Clavaria ligula, but he was unable to trace any direct con” 
nection between the two. 
There is thus a reasonable doubt probably as to 
20 Note sur l’H ypocrea alutacea Pers. Bull. Soc. Bot. de France 26:3 
2t Krypt. Fl. Schles., Pilze, Zweite Halfte 3:272. 1894. 
2 Engler und Prantl Pfl. Fam. 11: 365. 1897. 
which horn of 
3-35: 1879: 
23 Lloyd’s Myc. Notes 9 (195):110. 1902. 
