Anderson & Ickis: Massachusetts Species of Helvella 225 



face and stipe. The very dark color of the stipe distinguishes it 

 from H. adhaerens. 



Massachusetts Collections: Sunderland, Oct. 1920 (Ickis 

 & Anderson) M. A. C. Herb. 2825. Apparently rare. 



10. Helvella Monachella Fr. Sys. Myc. 2: 18. 1823 



Morchella monacella Port. Hist. X, c. 70. 1592. 

 Fungoidea fungiformia 6. Mich. N. PI. Gen. p. 204. 1729. 

 Boletus albus Batt. Fun. Agr. ari. Hist. p. 24, t. 2, f. H. 1759. 

 Phallus monacella Scop. Fl. Carn. 2: 476. 1772. 

 Elvela spadicea Schaeff. Fung. 4: index p. 112. t. 283. 1770. 

 Helvela grandis Cum. Act. Ac. Taurin, t. 2. 1805. 



Fries' description. Pileo deflexo lobato adnato laevi subspa- 

 diceo, stipite cavo laevi glabro albo. 



Antecedenti proxima, sed notis allatis & vegetatione vernali bene 

 distincta. Stipes 1-2 unc. longus, sursum attenuatus, ^2 unc. vix 

 crassus, primo teres ; dein subcompressus versus basin lacuna no- 

 tatus. Pileus demun crispus et undulatus, colore varius, badius, 

 spadiceus, violaceous, nigrescens, etc. 



Pileus irregularly lobed, undulate, deflexed and adnate to the 

 stipe, 3-6 cm. broad, pale-brown, chestnut-brown or darker to 

 violaceous or blackish above, much lighter below. Stipe terete or 

 somewhat compressed, smooth, hollow, somewhat swollen below, 

 attenuate upward, minutely pubescent but becoming glabrous, 

 2-5 cm. high, 1 cm. thick, white. Asci cylindrical. Spores ellip- 

 soidal, hyaline, smooth, with large central oil drop, 16-18 X io/x. 

 Paraphyses slender, septate, enlarging upward, brown at the tips. 



Solitary in woods on the ground in spring. 



The writers have not seen a fresh plant of this species ; the 

 above description being taken from those of Fries, Rehm, Massee/ 

 Gillet, and others. It appears to be a rare plant in America, hav- 

 ing been reported only from New England and California. It is 

 said to be common in Italy but even the European literature is 

 scanty and based on very few collections. Rehm has well said 

 that the species is in need of further investigation ; it is doubly 

 true of American collections. Fries finds that it is very closely 

 related to H. Infula (Gyromitra) , and on comparing his descrip- 

 tions of the two species, one wonders what the important mor- 

 phological differences are. It differs from all our other Helvel- 



