8 BULLETIN 380, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
When there were included in the original packet specimens from 
different hosts or different localities, in some cases representing dif- 
ferent species, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to de- 
termine which was the original material from which Schweinitz’s 
description was made. At the same time, Dr. Michener, in case the 
specimen was not too scanty, evidently took a small portion of it 
for his own herbarium. Michener’s catalogue of his herbarium lists 
Sphaeria gyrosa Schw. Consulting his collection it is found that 
No. 1481, the number of Schweinitz’s specimen, is missing. Pin 
holes in the mounting sheet, however, show that the specimen which 
was once there has been removed. As perhaps throwing some light 
on the possible location of this specimen, it may be said that a speci- 
men apparently typical S. gyrosa, pycnidial form on beech, labeled 
by Dr. William Trelease as Sphaeria gyrosa from Pennsylvania, was 
seen in the Boissier Herbarium, Geneva. Dr. .Trelease tells the 
writers that this specimen probably came from Dr. Michener, and 
as there is no evidence that Dr. Michener or any one else has col- 
lected #. gyrosa in Pennsylvania there is considerable probability 
that this specimen represents a portion of Schweinitz’s original col- 
lection. 
In most cases all of the material in Schweinitz’s original species 
packets was removed and either mounted or distributed. This was 
the case with Sphaeria gyrosa. The original packet of Schweinitz, 
which was fortunately preserved with all the others, is empty and 
apparently a part at least of the specimen which it contained is 
found in the mounted collection as prepared by Michener. This 
consists of a single piece of bark shown in Plate VI, figure 1. From 
the evidence the writers have been able to gather from Schweinitz’s 
manuscripts and correspondence, as well as from studies of his writ- 
ings and specimens in other herbaria, it appears that this specimen 
is the one indicated on the original packet and also by Schweinitz 
(74, p. 206) as having been collected in New England and sent to 
him by Torrey. This, as shown by his correspondence, was after he 
had left North Carolina. The bark upon which the fungus grew is 
clearly not Fagus, Juglans, or Quercus, the hosts originally given for 
S. gyrosa, but apparently Acer. It is therefore not a part of the 
original specimens from Salem, N. C., upon which his description 
was based, and in reality is not Sphaeria gyrosa, but a species of 
Nectria, which Schweinitz incorrectly identified as S. gyrosa. Por- ' 
tions of this same specimen are found in Berkeley’s herbarium at 
Kew and in the Curtis herbarium at Harvard. They are clearly the 
Nectria referred to above from Torrey. In this connection, it may 
be noted that E. Hitchcock in 1829 (42, p. 63) reports Sphaeria 
gyrosa Schw. from Amherst, Mass., and states in the preface to his 
list that Dr. Torrey assisted in the determination of the cryptogams. 
