MONOGRAPH ОЕ CHAETOMIUM AND ASCOTRICHA 161 
work of an entirely different nature from that of many preceding 
authors, and it is only to be regretted that the monograph could 
not have been made more complete by its author. Zopf recognized 
the necessity of making descriptions clear and complete, of 
including details, and of presenting figures with the descriptions. 
It will be remembered that in his monograph Zopf divided his 
species into two subgenera, Chaetomium and Chaetomidium. 
Under the first subgenus he described as new and figured Ch. 
spirale; renamed, described, and figured Kunze's Ch. globosum 
under the name Ch. Kunzeanum; described and figured Ch. 
murorum Cda., Ch. pannosum Wallr., Ch. crispatum Fckl., and 
Ch. indicum Cda.; described Ch. cuniculorum Fckl., Ch. elatum 
Kze.; redescribed and figured his own species, Ch. bostrychodes, 
which had already appeared at an earlier date. Under the 
subgenus Chaetomidium he described and figured Ch. fimeti 
Fckl. 
Since 1881, writers have for the most part been content with 
publishing scattered new species and varieties, and no one has 
attempted a complete survey of all which have appeared, or a 
revision of the badly confused literature. Among these forms, 
Which number at least forty and which represent the work of 
nearly as many authors, two only can be regarded with certainty 
as good species; Ch. contortum, described by Dr. Peck (67) in 
1896 and Ch. simile, by Massee and Salmon (59) in 1902. During 
the year 1910, however, Miss Helen L. Palliser (65) wrote her 
revision of the Chaetomiaceae of North America, and in the 
same year Bainier (3) published his monograph of the genus. 
The work of both these authors includes the study of a con- 
siderable number of forms. 
In Palliser's revision seventeen species are enumerated, 
fourteen of which had previously appeared in publications of 
other authors. Ch. aterrimum is described for the first time 
under a name given it by Ellis and Everhart, while Ch. cochliodes, 
Ch. spirochaete, and Ch. flexuosum are described as new. At the 
end of her paper four species are enumerated as doubtful forms. 
It may be well to state here the more important differences in 
arrangement between Palliser’s paper and that of the present 
writer. In Palliser’s revision Ch. caninum Е. & Е. stands as а 
