UnC INULA 115 



Syll. Fung. 14: 16. 1899; Lindau also (in Englcr and Prantl's 

 Pflanzenfaniilien, i': 328, 331. 1897) retains the genus]. 



13. U. CONFUSA Massee 



poly 



159. 1S76. 



Pleochacta Ciirtisii Sacc. & Speg.; Sacc. Syll. Fung, i : 9 

 (partim). 1882. 



Unciniila confnsa Massee, Grevillea, 17: "j^. 18S9; Sacc. 

 Syll. Fung. 9: 367. 1891; Burr.; Ell. & Everh. N. Amcr. 

 Pyren. 19. 1892. 



" Peritheclis sparsis ; appendicibus multis. On leaves of Cdtis 

 occidcntalis, Car. No. 5619. Perithecia scattered; appendages 

 about 28, I ^ longer than the diameter of the perithecia, hyaline.'' 



(Berk. Grevillea, 4 : 159. 1876). 



" Hj-pophyllous ; mycelium very scanty, not forming spots ; 

 perithecia scattered, usually not more than two or three on a leaf, 

 150-200 fi diam., appendages 25-28, simple, colorless, very slen- 

 der, about 300 X 2-3 11 ; apices strongly involute, not at all in- 

 crassated; asci about 25, cylindrico-clavate, tetrasporous ; spores 

 colorless, simple, elliptic-oblong, 20 X lO^u" (Massee, Grevillea, 

 17: ^T. 1889). 



Massee's description was based on the result of an examination 

 of the type specimen oi^'UncinuIa poljchacta" in the Kew Her- 

 barium. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find on this type- 

 specimen any perithecia which show the characters described by 

 Berkeley and Massee, but, curiously enough, I have found several 

 perithecia of Uncinula parvnla on the leaf, agreeing perfectly with 

 this species in possessing a diameter of loo-i 10 ft., lo-'jo short, 

 narrow appendages, 5-6 broadly-ovate asci, and 4-7 spores. 



The question naturally presents itself. Could this have been the 

 fungus examined by either Berkeley or ^ilassee ? I do not think 

 this is possible. In Berkeley's description the rather contradic- 

 tory characters, "appendicibus multis" and "appendages about 

 28" appear, but, what is very important, on the type sheet at 

 Kew, Berkeley has given a drawing of a perithecium showing 28 

 appendages, slightly exceeding the diameter of the perithecium. 

 In the diagnosis, moreover, the appendages are described as " i 5 ' 

 longer than the diameter of the perithecia." In Massee's descrip- 

 tion the additional characters given, "perithecia 1 50-200 /^ diam., 



