1911} ATKINSON—DICTYOPHORA AND ITHYPHALLUS II 
the point of their junction. For this reason it is apt to be 
overlooked unless one is careful to look between the pileus and 
stem, or unless a section of this part of the plant is made. Some- 
times the veil is torn into a few fragments, and at other times it 
may become free from its point of attachment and lie as a 
ring or band of membranous tissue around the stem below the 
pileus. It is then quite plainly seen. This is shown in the photo- 
graph reproduced in fig. 5. This figure also shows the mem- 
branous collar around the base of the stem with which the veil was 
connected before expansion of the plant, when it was torn apart: 
In the first published description of Phallus ravenelii B. and C. 
(I, p. 33) no mention was made of the presence of this veil. Far- 
LOW (4, p. 247) describes it and speaks of it as a rudiment of a veil. 
PECK (12, p. 123) also describes and figures it. He speaks of it 
as an indusium or veil, and states that RAVENEL, on whose notes 
and specimens BERKELEY described the plant, had made a com- 
plete description of this veil in his notes, which BERKELEY failed 
to include in his description. Morcan (11, p. 146) places P. 
ravenelii in Hymenophallus (as a subgenus of Phallus) along with 
P. duplicata Bosc. (Dictyophora duplicaia), thus considering it 
more closely related to the present Dictyophora than to I. impu- 
dicus, which he places in Ithyphallus (as a subgenus of Phallus). 
In this respect he followed Gerarp (8, p. 11). He speaks of the 
veil as an indusium or veil which is reticulate in some species of 
Hymenophallus, and not reticulate in others, and is dependent 
from the apex of the stem underneath the pileus. In Ithyphallus 
impudicus he recognizes the thin membrane between the pileus 
and the stem which is torn into shreds as the plant expands. 
Ep. FIscuer (6, p. 30) placed P. ravenelii in the genus Ithy- 
phallus because he believed a true indusium, homologous with the 
indusium of Dictyophora, was absent. In the study of a few young 
fruit bodies he finds (7, p. 16) not only no evidence of a true 
indusium in the primordial tissue between the stem and pileus, 
but also no evidence of a fundament or the beginning of a differen- 
tiation of tissue which would indicate a rudimentary indusium. 
Burt (1b, p. 385) regards the veil in P. ravenelit as homologous 
with the indusium of Dictyophora, probably being influenced more by 
