

• 



292 BOTAXICAL GAZETTE [april 





Geoglossaceae that certain members of this family are at first pro- 

 vided with a veil. It is equally certain that in Rhizina iindulata 

 no enveloping membrane is ever present. Both conditions occur 

 therefore within the order. Whether it will prove possible to 

 separate the families of the orders on the basis of the presence or 

 absence of a veil is doubtful, but additional investigations on / 



members of the 3 families will be necessary to determine this point. 

 Since the work of McCubbin (25) on Helvetia elastica is the only 

 contribution of any importance to our knowledge of the develop- 

 ment of the fruit body in the Helvellaceae, it is desirable that 

 other representatives of this family be studied. Also, since 

 McCubbin has stated definitely "from observations on a very 

 complete series of stages that Ceoglossum hirsutum shows no trace 

 whatever" of a veil, it is desirable that photographs be published 

 demonstrating the gymnocarpous nature of the ascocarp in this or 

 other members of the Geoglossaceae in which a veil is absent at 

 all stages. Finally, the development of the fruit body in additional 

 species of the Rhizinaceae should be studied to determine whether 

 the conditions described for Rhizina iindulata are typical of the 

 entire family. 



It has become increasingly evident since the publication by 

 Schroter (27) of his system of classification of the Discomycetes 

 that his basis for the separation of the Helvellales from the other 

 orders of the group is untenable. Not only has it been demon- 

 strated that in certain of the Helvellales the fruit body is angio- 

 carpous, but also in the Pezizales it has been shown that certain 

 species possess a fruit body which is clearly gymnocarpous. As 

 representatives of this latter group may be enumerated Ascodesmis 

 (Claussen 8), Pyronema confluens (Harper i8, Claussen 9* 

 et ah), Lachnea stercorea (Fraser 15), L. scutellata (Brown 5), 

 and Ascobolus magnificus (Dodge ii, 12, 13). The presence or 

 absence of a hyphal envelope, therefore, cannot be used to separate 

 the Helvellales and Pezizales as constituted by Schroter, and 

 some other system of classification of the Discomycetes must be 

 employed. That of Boudier (3) has met with considerable favor. 



As pointed out by Dodge (13) and Atkinson (i), several well 

 defined types of ascocarps are present in the Ascomycetes, and these 



