154 



Mycologia 



of Pezizella lythri, as found on Acer in America, that there can be 

 little doubt of its identity. We have, however, seen no authentic 

 specimens of Saccardo's species. 



Gloeosporium ? rhoinum Sacc. This species found on leaves 

 of Rhus glabra in Itaiy and figured by Saccardo in 1881, 

 was later (1882) described by him. Still later (1884) this was 

 made the type of a new genus Hainesia by Ellis and Saccardo. 

 Specimens collected by Ellis on Rhus in New Jersey are also 

 cited by Ellis & Saccardo in the description of the species. The 

 spore measurements given with the original figures and descrip- 

 tions are 10-12 X 3 ft. This may be an error. There is a possi- 

 bility, however, that Saccardo had another species of Hainesia 

 with larger spores, as we suspect that one of this character does 

 occur on Rhus, from the fact that there is on Rhus cotinus a 

 Sclerotiopsis having larger spores, which has been described as 

 Leptothyrium rhois West, by Fuckel (1870) but is not Westen- 

 dorp's species. Saccardo has proposed the name Gloeosporium 

 rhois J3 fuckelii for Fuckel's plant. This, according to Fuckel's 

 specimen, which we have examined, is a true Sclerotiopsis closely 

 related to >S\ cone ova. The conidia in Ellis' specimens on Rhus 

 copallina in his herbarium and Rhus aromatica in N. A. F. No. 

 2278 are only 6-8 X 1.5-2 fi. Von Hohnel (191 8) also found the 

 spores from European specimens on Rhus to 7-9 X 1. 6-1. 8 ft. 

 Except for the measurements given, the figure and description of 

 Gloeosporium ? (Hainesia) rhoinum Sacc. agree perfectly with 

 Hainesia rhoina Ellis & Sacc. Authentic specimens in Ellis' her- 

 barium show that this is the same conidial form that is commonly 

 found on several species of Rhus and other hosts in this country. 

 In a later paper (1918) von Hohnel states that Hymenula rhoina 

 (Ellis & Sacc.) Kab. & Bub. on Rhus cotinus is identical with 

 specimens of Hainesia rhoina on Rhus glabra from Italy and 

 North America. Von Hohnel finds the spores in Rabat's speci- 

 mens Fun. Imp. 749, to be 7-9 X 1.6-8 ft and not as given by Sac- 

 cardo (1882) and by Bubak and Kabat (1912). The latter 

 authors state that the spores are 6^10 X 2.5-4 ft but in a later par- 

 agraph in the same paper the measurements are given as 6-16 X 

 2.5-4 ft. It appears clear that this is a typographical error, the 

 "6" in " 16" being used by mistake instead of "o." 



