116 A Monograph of the Erysiphaceae 



asci about 25, cylindrico-clavate *' quite prohibit us from suppos- 



pa 



nfi 



is a distinct species, one that has apparently disappeared since its 



original discovery. 



U. confitsa and U. polychacta were for some time greatly con- 

 fused with one another. Both species were originally described 

 on page 159 of Grevillea, 4: 1876; the former appears first on 

 the page as ''Erysiphe polycJiaeta Berk, and Curt."; the latter as 

 *'Uncinula polychacta Berk, and Curt." The essential characters 

 given for each were these : E, polychacta, appendages many, about 

 equal to the diameter of the perithecium, straight, asci elongated, 



clavate ; U. polychacta, appendages about 28, i)^ longer than the 



diameter of the perithecium. As a matter of fact, the first species 

 proved to be a true Uncinula^ and the description '' appendages 

 straight'' referred only to the immature condition. 



^'ErysipIiC polychacta'' has occurred in several places in North 

 America, whilst '^Uncinula polychacta'' has not been refound since 

 its original discovery. It was not unnatural, therefore, that many 

 botanists meeting with an Uncinula on leaves of Ccltis should refer 

 it to the Uncinula polychacta of Berk, and Curt., rather than to 

 the Erysiphe polychacta of these authors. This was done by 

 Ravenel (Fung. Carol. Exsicc. fasc. 4 : 6^^ and by Ellis and Ever- 

 hart in their Exsiccati (N. Amer. Fung, 21 13). The same mis- 

 take was made by Ellis in the Journal of Mycology, 2 : 52, 53. 

 1886. where an attempt was made to reconcile the description of 

 the few appendages of U, polychacta Berk, and Curt, with the 

 presence of numerous ones in the plant under observation by say- 

 ing "The statement in Grevillea that the number of appendages is 

 about 28 is evidently a typographical mistake for 228," and finally 

 by Tracy and Galloway, who gave an excellent figure and descrip- 

 tion, and who similarly supposed that the description ''about 2Z " 

 was probably a misprint for 280w 



Massee (238) first pointed out that '' Ery sip] le polychacta'' 

 was an Uncinula, and that this was the species which the authors 

 mentioned above had had under observation, and wrongly identi- 

 fied with the '* Uncimtla polychacta " of Berk, and Curt. The 

 specific name ''polychacta " having to be used, in accordance with 



