KNTOMOHITIIOUHAH OF THE UNITKI) STATES. 



153 



show that these characters, as regards the format ion of resting spores, arc not suffi- 

 ciently distinctive. Yet I doubl if this proves to be the case; and, should it prove 

 otherwise, I believe that the subgenus should be separated as a genus from other Em- 

 pusae. 



Under Eritomophthora, which I have used in brackets as a subgenus, I have included 

 all forms characterized by the production of typically digitate conidiophores; differing 

 from recent German writers in not considering this character of generic value, as well 

 as in omitting even as a subgenus t he name Lamia given by Xowakowski to a single 

 form (E. Culicis). 



In his extended paper on Entomophthoreae, 1 Xowakowski summarizes the generic 

 distinctions of Empusa, Entomophthora and of his genus Lamia, as follows: 



1. Emtomophthora including ooispora, curvispora, conica, and Aphidis. 



Fungus growth, one-celled or with lihunentous brandies. 

 Paraphyses, rhizoids and columella, present. 

 Conidiophores, branched. 



Resting spores, zygospores (three species), azygospores (two species). 



2. Lamia including the single form Culicis. 



Fungus groiolh, filamentous. 



Paraphyses, present. 



Rhizoids and columella, absent (nie ma). 



Conidiophores, unbranched. 



Resting spores, azygospores (borne terminally). 



3. EsirusA including Grylli, Fresenii and Muscae. 



Fungus growth, filamentous. 

 Paraphyses and rhizoids, absent. 

 Columella, present or absent. 

 Conidiophores, simple. 

 Resting spores, azygospores. 



"Whether Xowakowski in his text gives more satisfactory characters for the genus 

 Lamia than are shown in the above table I am unable to say; but, from the data here 

 given, the presence of paraphyses (which I have apparently overlooked in examining the 

 species) is the single point which separates it from Empusa as defined below it. The 

 opinion of Brefeld that the form should be separated as a connecting link between Em- 

 pusa and Entomo2)hthora,based upon a tendency to a digitate type observable in the co- 

 nidiophores and upon the presence of rhizoids is more readily understood, yet singularly 

 enough, and erroneously I think, Xowakowski affirms the absence of both these points 

 of structure. In my own opinion, E. Culicis cannot be separated from E. Muscae by other 

 than specific distinctions; the points of similarity of the two being decidedly greater 

 than their points of difference. The same may be said of the two species subsequently 

 described as E. papillata and E. apiculala which bear somewhat the same relation to 

 E. Ghrylli that E. Culicis does to E. Muscae; each having rhizoids and showing a slight 

 tendency, in the case of E. apiculata at least, to a digitate type of conidiophores. 



Taking the genus EntomopJithora, as defined by Xowakowski in the same table, the 

 digitation of the conidiophores is apparently the only exclusive difference of importance 

 which separates it from Empusa. Even here E. Culicis and E. apiculata tend to break 



1 1. c. B, p. 170. 



