128 A Monograph of the Erysiphaceae 



Roumeg. Fung. Gall. Exsicc. 1164, 3 141 ; de Thiim. Fung, austr. 

 459; Fckl Fung. Rhen. 694; Sacc. Myc. Ven. 148; Rab. Herb. 

 myc. ed. 2, 469; Oudem. Fung. Neerl. Exsicc- 159; Erb. Critt. 

 Ital. 144, =^=193 ; Rehm, Ascom. 448; * Syd. Myc. March. 979; 

 * Romell. Fung, exsicc. praes. scand. 62, 



Hypophyllous, or aniphigenous ;* mycelium evanescent, or 

 sometimes faintly persistent ; perithecia usually densely gregarious, 

 but sometimes scattered, globose-depressed, 95-146// in diameter, 

 cells small, about 10 jx wide, appendages 5-18, 4-10 times the 

 diameter of the perithecium, smooth, colorless and aseptate (some- 

 times brown towards the base, and then usually septate), hyaline 

 above, becoming thick-walled and refractive in the lower half when 

 mature, flexuous, sub-flaccid, penicillate, apex frequently un- 

 branched (? immature) or once or twice dichotomously branched, 

 branching lax and vague, primary branches usually long, and 

 more or less recurved, tips of ultimate branches not recurved ; asci 

 5-12, ovate-oblong to broadly-ovate, 52-68 x 30-38//, usually 

 stalked; spores i~6, usually 4, 20-23 ^ 10-12 ft. 



Hosts, — Astragalus Ciccr (164*) (384), A. Glycyphyllos, A, 

 onobrychis (390). 



Distribution. — Europe : Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, 

 Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Nor- 

 way, Sweden, Russia. 



M. astragali is related M. Bdinnlcri and M. eiionymi in the 

 flaccid penicillate appendages, but differs from both species in the 

 apex of the appendages being less branched. In the present 

 species the very long and flexuous appendages, which are about 

 6fi wide, are thick-walled and shining in their lower half, and 

 whether seen singly under the microscope or in dense clusters on 

 the leaf, present a shining silky appearance which makes the old 

 specific name of holoscricea very appropriate. The apical branch- 

 ing of the appendages is extremely ill-defined, in fact, there are 

 usually only two or three appendages in any perithecium which 

 show any signs of branching at all. I have once seen the apex 

 feebly 3 -times dichotomous, rarely it is twice dichotomous, but is 

 usually (when branched at all) only once forked, as is generally 

 described. 



Several authors, on account of this slight branching of the ap- 

 pendages, have placed the present species in ErysipJie ; the apical 

 branching, however, when present, is regularly dichotomous and 



