16 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
time of expansion of the plant, fragments of a veil are to be found 
in addition to the well developed indusium. In some examples 
of Phallus ravenelii the ‘‘veil” is scarcely more massive than is 
here represented in Dictyophora duplicata. The fact that in 
Phallus ravenelii it is usually more massive and thus more perma- 
nent, is not a sufficient ground for considering it homologous with 
an entirely different organ in other species, which originates within 
and from a portion of this primordial tissue. 
The corresponding cross-section of Ithyphallus impudicus, repro- 
duced in fig. 15 from a photograph, is very instructive in this con- 
nection. Lying within the primordial tissue and parallel with the 
surfaces of the stipe and pileus wall is a thin layer of more deeply 
staining tissue. This is the fundament or rudiment of an indusium, 
which was observed in the longitudinal section of the upper part of 
the fruit body, and first appears in the young fruit body at the time 
of the origin of the fundament of the pileus. It has not advanced 
beyond the condition of primordial tissue, but the more dense 
arrangement of the hyphae and their deeper staining reaction is 
retained, in some examples at least, up to the maturity of the fruit 
body. As already stated, Ep. Fiscuer has described and figured 
the fundament of the indusium in the very young stages of Jihy- 
phallus impudicus, although I differ slightly from him as to the 
limits of this fundament. It is homologous with the correspond- 
ing stages of the indusium fundament in Dictyophora phalloidea as 
described and figured by him. In the young stages of Phallus 
ravenelii studied by him (7, p. 15) he found no evidence of even 
a fundament of the indusium, though the material which he studied 
did not include the very young stages. 
From all that has been determined in connection with this 
study, however, together with the results of other investigations 
on these species, the conclusion that a true indusium is wanting 
in Phallus ravenelii appears to be justified. If Dictyophora is to 
be retained as a genus distinct from Jthyphallus, as at present I 
believe it should be, Phallus ravenelii cannot properly be placed in 
the genus Dictyophora if the indusium of this genus is to be inter- 
preted in the light of its ontogenetic history and distinct differentia- 
tion from primordial tissue, rather than upon the mere fact of the 
