36 THE PERISPORIACECE OF SACCARDO’S SYLLOGE FUNGORUM. 
children and uncultured or deficient intellects prefer counting 
stamens to any more elaborate method for the determination of 
flowering plants, so will they accept the counting of septa as the 
perfection of simplicity. 
As already intimated, the Perisporiacece are not absolutely 
spermologically classified, and therefore, generally, we take no 
exception to the first 87 pages of Professor Saccardo’s “ Sylloge.” 
There are, nevertheless, a few minute details to which we will 
advert for the purpose of revision. In the Erysiphei , the arrange- 
ment is that of Leveille, with one or two additional genera, which 
in two instances are not desirable. Erysiphella, which only professes 
to differ from Erysiphe in the absence of definite appendages, 
whereas this is only a fanciful difference, since in many of the 
species of Erysiphe the interwoven threads of the perithecia defy 
distinction into mycelium and appendages. There is no real 
difference in this respect between so-called Erysiphella and some 
species called Eiysiphe. We should be glad to know how the 
coloured appendages of Erysiphe lamprocai'pa are to be distin- 
guished from the mycelioid filaments of the perithecia. Leveille 
himself says “ il faut de grandes precautions pour separer les 
appendicules.” The other genus to which we allude is Pleochceta. 
The typical species is Uncinula polychceta , Berk, and Curt. The 
difference indicated between this genus and Uncinula is that the 
appendages are straight in the former, and curved at the tops in 
the latter, with a slight variation in the form of the asci. W e are 
prepared to admit that the diagnosis of the genus Pleochcete 
presents a distinct difference, and that a species with straight 
appendages is not in its place if included in Uncinula , where the 
tips, in all the species are curved. But Uncinula polychceta , 
Berk & Curt, is a true Uncinula, with numerous appendages, 
curled at the tips, just as in U. adunca, except that they are 
thickened upwards, so as to be clavate. The specimens in the 
Berkeley Herbarium are accompanied by a drawing, exhibiting 
these features which have been confirmed by examination. The 
Uncinula polychceta , Berk & Curt, is a true Uncinula, and there- 
fore it was an error to adopt it as the type of a genus with straight 
appendages. The description of Erysiphe polychceta, B. & C. (No. 
990) is quite different, and so are the specimens. The perithecia 
are much larger, and are seated upon dense orbicular spots of 
matted mycelium. The appendages are far more numerous than in 
Uncinula polychceta, and hence there is no reason to suppose that 
the Erysiphe is a condition of the Uncinula. Therefore the 
cardinal error has been the assumption that the two species are 
identical, which has introduced an element of confusion. Uncinula 
polychceta, B. & C. will have to remain as a separate species, and 
if there is any good basis for Pleochceta, as a genus, then the 
Uncinula must be expunged from its synonyms. 
Whilst on the subject of genera, we cannot see how in a natural 
arrangement, Sporoi'inia could possibly be far removed from Peris- 
porium, but we can find no mention of it in Perisporiacece , after 
t'accardo. 
