8 BULLETIN 380, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



AVhen there were included in the original packet specimens from 

 different hosts or different localities, in some cases representing dif- 

 ferent species, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to de- 

 termine which was the original material from which Schweinitz's 

 description was made. At the same time, Dr. Michener, in case the 

 specimen was not too scanty, evidently took a small portion of it 

 for his own herbarium. Michener's catalogue of his herbarium lists 

 /Sp/iaeHa gyrosa Schw. Consulting his collection it is found that 

 No. 1431, the number of Schweinitz's specimen, is missing. Pin 

 holes in the mounting sheet, however, show that the specimen which 

 was once there has been removed. As perhaps throwing some light 

 on the possible location of this specimen, it may be said that a speci- 

 men apparently typical S. gyrosa, pycnidial form on beech, labeled 

 by Dr. William Trelease as Sphaeria gyrosa from Pennsylvania, was 

 seen in the Boissier Herbarium, Geneva. Dr. Trelease tells the 

 writers that this specimen probably came from Dr. Michener, and 

 as there is no evidence that Dr. Michener or any one else has col- 

 lected E. gyrosa' in Pennsylvania there is considerable probability 

 that this specimen represents a portion of Schweinitz's original col- 

 lection. 



In most cases all of the material in Schweinitz's original species 

 packets was removed and either mounted or distributed. This was 

 the case with /Sphaeria gyrosa. The original packet of Schweinitz, 

 which was fortunately preserved with all the others, is empty and 

 apparently a part at least of the specimen which it contained is 

 found in the mounted collection as prepared by Michener. This 

 consists of a single piece of bark shown in Plate VI, figure 1. From 

 the evidence the writers have been able to gather from Schweinitz's 

 manuscripts and correspondence, as well as from studies of his writ- 

 ings and specimens in other herbaria, it appears that this specimen 

 is the one indicated on the original packet and also by Schweinitz 

 (74, p. 206) as having been collected in New England and sent to 

 him by Torrey. This, as shown by his correspondence, was after he 

 had left North Carolina. The bark upon which the fungus grew is 

 clearly not Fagus, Juglans, or Quercus, the hosts originally given for 

 S. gyrosa, but apparently Acer. It is therefore not a part of the 

 original specimens from Salem, N. C, upon which his description 

 was based, and in reality is not Sphaeria gyrosa, but a species of 

 Nectria, which Schweinitz incorrectly identified as S. gyrosa. Por- 

 tions of this same specimen are found in Berkeley's herbarium at 

 Kew and in the Curtis herbarium at Harvard. They are clearly the 

 Nectria referred to above from Torrey. In this connection, it may 

 be noted that E. Hitchcock in 1829 (42, p. 63) reports Sphaeria 

 gyrosa Schw. from Amherst, Mass., and states in the preface to his 

 list that Dr. Torrey assisted in the determination of the cryptogams. 



