SYSTEMATIC RELATIONSHIP OF CLITHRIS 
Leo R. TEHON 
(WITH PLATE IX) 
The genus Clithris was described by Fries (Syst. Myc. 2:186) 
in 1823. Apparently unaware of this earlier description, WALLROTH 
(Crypt. 2:422) erected the genus Colpoma in 1833, and CORDA 
(Icon. 5:34) the genus Sporomega in 1840. FRIES’S genus was 
entirely overlooked and the two others accepted, so that they 
appear in SAccarDo’s Sylloge Fungorum (2:801; 5:1127) in 1883 
and 1891. In 1896, however, REHM (Rabenh. Krypt. FI. 3:101) 
called attention to the earlier name as follows: 
Unter obigem Namen (Clithris 1823), welcher die Prioritat besitzt, stelle 
ich sowohl Colpoma Wallr. 1833! mit aussen bereiften Apothecien, als Sporomega 
Corda 1840! mit schwarzen Apothecien zusammen, da der innere Bau, wie 
die Entwicklungsweise der Apothecien bei beiden die gleichen sind. 
In his subsequent treatment of the genus Clithris, nearly all of 
the species are listed which were included by SaccarRDo under 
Colpoma and Sporomega. Saccarpo (Sylloge Fung. 18:165) in 
1906 accepts REHm’s correction and records Colpoma and Sporo- 
mega as synonyms of Clithris. 
Fries and: Karsten (Mycol. Fenn. 1:221) placed Clithris next 
to Cenangium, while QuETLET (Enchir. Fung. 330) placed Colpoma 
among the Patellariaceae. SAccARDO at first listed Colpoma and 
Sporomega with the Hysteriales; but later, combining the two 
genera under Clithris, he places the whole with the Phacidiales. 
In the light of what has just been said, the taxonomic relation- 
ship of the genus may appear uncertain; and, indeed, when speci- 
mens are examined, the difficulty is seen to be real. Characterized 
by a more or less linear ascoma which opens by a longitudinal split, 
the superficial aspect fits very well into the concept of an Hysteria- 
ceous form. When there is added to this the fact that in many 
specimens the split is small and does not expose very widely the 
fruiting disk, the Hysteriaceous aspect is strengthened. It is not | 
_ Botanical Gazette, vol. 65 [552 
