Seaver: Cup-Fungi 



3 



value as was done in the case of Gyromitra. This is shown by 

 the fact that no two modern writers seem to agree as to just 

 what constitutes the difference between Gyromitra esculenta and 

 Elvela infula. 



In " Minnesota Helvellineae," Miss Hone lists Elvela infula 

 but makes no mention of Gyromitra esculenta. She then ap- 

 pends an extended note explaining why she considers the Minne- 

 sota plant an Elvela instead of a Gyromitra, laying great stress 

 on the absence of what she considers a true inflation of the cap, 

 a character which has been ascribed to Gyromitra by Schroeter. 

 Just what Schroeter would consider a true inflation of the cap 

 is a question which mycologists seem unable to answer. 



In the " Discomycetes of Wisconsin," Dodge lists Elvela infula 

 but does not include Gyromitra esculenta. He apparently found 

 no specimen in Wisconsin which would satisfy the requirements 

 of Gyromitra esculenta as defined by modern authors. 



The writer, in " Iowa Discomycetes," listed Gyromitra escu- 

 lenta, but at that time knew nothing of Elvela infula. Yet the 

 illustrations of the Minnesota and Iowa plants which have been 

 placed in different genera might easily pass for the same species. 



After a comparison of the above lists, the writer is convinced 

 that the three authors are writing about the same plant but calling 

 it by different names. Otherwise, why is it that the two species 

 have never been reported from either of the three adjacent 

 states which have such a close similarity in climate and natural 

 conditions ? 



And European reports are equally puzzling. Rehm in his 

 " Discomycetes of Europe " lists both Gyromitra esculenta and 

 G. infula, but all of the exsiccati mentioned are included under 

 the first. If the two forms are really distinct and both are repre- 

 sented in Europe, it seems strange that Rehm was unable to find 

 any published exsiccati to illustrate the latter species. 



After a careful examination of all the available facts, the 

 writer is forced to conclude that Gyromitra is what some writers 

 might call a traditional genus, having come down through litera- 

 ture and having been commonly accepted by mycologists but orig- 

 inally founded on a plant which cannot be specifically separated 



