92 NORTH AMERICAN SORDARIACEAE 
x 3702: paraphyses ventricose, agglutinated, irregular, longer 
than the asci, but not mixed with them 
Spores in several series, ellipsoid, broadly rounded at both 
ends, 13—19% x 26-32 ranging from hyaline when young 
through olivaceous to dark-brown and opaque: primary append- 
age wide, cylindrical, shorter than the spore and quite persistent ; 
secondary appendages terminating the primary and apex of the 
spore, at first long delicate filaments made up of two strands, 
but at maturity appearing like two short irregular projections 
with very uncertain characters. . (Pl. 70. f. 11-13 
Distinctive characters: Fugacious character 7 secondary ap- 
pendages and comparatively short and wide primary ones. 
Cultivated specimens: On rabbit dung, Auburn, Ala., Aug. 
1899 (Earle). 
The species is very closely related to P. pleiospora, as will be 
readily seen from the figures and description. The spore ap- 
pendages are, however, very distinct and characteristic in the two 
species. In the former species they are readily recognized, but 
here it is with the greatest difficulty that one is able to isolate the 
spores without destroying them. Even when undisturbed, a good 
deal of them has disappeared by the time the spores are ripe. 
The best place to study these appendages is in the rather young 
ascus as it stretches under the cover-slip. Here they can with 
difficulty be discerned. It does not seem possible that the ap- 
pendages can be of much use in the distribution of spores in this 
species. 
32. PLEURAGE CANINA (Peck) Kuntze, Rev. Gen. Plant. 3°: 505. 
1898 
Sphaeria canina Peck, Reg. Rep. 28: 78. 1875. 
Philocopra canina (Peck) Sacc. Syll. Fung. 1 : 251. 1882; 
Ellis & Everhart, N. Am. Pyren. 133. 1892. 
The author has been unable to examine the original of the 
above in the New York State Museum at Albany. Professor 
Peck, in reply to a letter of inquiry regarding it, says: ‘My 
specimen of this is so poor and indistinct as to be indivisible.” 
Later, in a conversation with Professor Peck, he expressed a very 
stréng doubt as to the authenticity of this species. He said: “It 
has without doubt been described before." He did not state, how- 
ever, under what species it should be placed. 
