12 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [January 



slightly divergent, externally edged with blackish brown, except at 

 the tips; the termination of the axis hyaline, slender, projecting, 

 without branches. Total length 200-540X8 fi near the base, where 

 the cells are 10-14 M l° n g- Branches before breaking, longer, 



50X4. 5M- 



On the wings of a small fly, Kamerun, West Africa, no. 2645. 



Sufficient material of this graceful form has been examined to convince me 

 that the individuals figured are fully matured, and that there is no abjunction 

 of definitely differentiated spores, a character in which it agrees with a small 

 assemblage of aposporous Hyphomycetes of which I have half a dozen or more 

 species from Africa and the East and West Indies that are reserved for future 

 consideration, and to which reference was made in my former paper (loc. 

 cit., p. 237). 



In this connection it may be mentioned that Spegazzini has recently 

 (loc. cit.) described certain Argentine forms which he refers to Chantransiopsis, 

 several dubious examples of which, from Africa and the West Indies, I have 

 myself encountered since the genus was established. One of the forms de- 

 scribed by Spegazzini under this name, but which seems to me not closely 

 related to it, is a problematical type which I have examined on Forficulae and 

 Staphylinidae from the East and West Indies, and from Argentina. It con- 

 sists of a deep brown, several-septate body, resembling a spore of Hendersonia 

 for example, elliptical in outline, convex above, and flat below, where it is in 

 contact with the substratum. From usually the end cells of this body are 

 developed a group of simple, straight, septate, hyaline hyphae. I have never 

 seen these hyphae producing anything in the nature of a spore, although 

 Spegazzini figures one which appears to be developing as a terminal prolifera- 

 tion. The position and history of this singular form must, I think, remain 

 somewhat doubtful. Although I have examined hosts well covered with the 

 brown, septate, primary structures described, I have never seen any that sug- 

 gested their origin and development, which has led me to suspect that they 

 might after all prove to be spores of some fungus, not entomogenous, which 

 develop in situations frequented by the hosts, and adhere to them as the spores 

 of agarics and other Basidiomycetes adhere to Endomychidae and Erotylidae. 

 The peculiar form of these bodies, however, and their almost universal germi- 

 nation in the manner described, make such a supposition doubtful. 



In the same paper Spegazzini has described a true species of Chantransi- 

 opsis which he refers to a new subgenus Asteronycha, based on a slight differ- 

 ence in the form of its dark attachment. In his comments on these plants he 

 appears to have misunderstood my expressed opinion in regard to their position, 

 or at least overlooked my statement, on page 230 of my former paper, that the 

 genus " comprises species belonging to the Hyphomycetes," and on page 247,. 

 where I mention, in connection with the suggestion that they may be related 



