Arthur: Uredinales of Porto Rico 
241 
The species was also collected in Porto Rico on the same host 
by Mr. and Mrs. A. A. Heller in 1899, 86^, as noted below, and 
by E. W. D. Holway, above Comercio, Feb., 1911. 
It was also found in the phanerogamic collection at the New 
York Botanical Garden on the same host collected by A. H. 
Curtiss near Nassau, Bahamas, Dec., 1902, 2, by Britton & Mills- 
paugh at Eight Mile Rocks, Great Bahama, Feb., 1905, 2428, and 
by Pollard & Palmer at Baracoa, Cuba, Jan., 1902, ii. 
It was pointed out by Bubak in 1901 (Sitz, Bohm. Ges. Wiss.,. 
page 5 of separate) that the earliest use of the name, Puccinia 
compacta, was for some species quite unlike the Ranunculaceous 
rust, for which DeBary’s name had then come into use. It ap- 
pears that Kunze gave the name to a collection from Surinam,, 
made by Weigelt in 1827. Thiimen remarks in Flora (1875, p. 
364) that “the fungus from Surinam is highly characteristic, and 
I here give a diagnosis drawn from an original specimen, as none 
is known to me.” Thiimen’s diagnosis and appended comments 
show that the specimen he had in hand was one collected in 
Surinam by Weigelt on an undetermined host, which we now 
know to be Dasyspora foveolata Berk. & Curt, on Xylopia sp. 
This was the same collection that Kunze had intended to name 
Puccinia gregaria. Hennings tells us in Hedwigia (1896, p. 230) 
that he found a specimen in the Berlin herbarium collected by 
Weigelt in Surinam, 1827, bearing the name P. gregaria Kunze 
and with a Latin diagnosis appended, which he publishes. The 
herbarium name of P. compacta, given by Kunze to a collection 
by Weigelt in Surinam on some Asclepiadaceous plant (now 
known to be Asclepias curassaz’ica) , was first published by 
Bubak in 1903, accompanied with a description and figures. 
In the Ellis herbarium, now at the New York Botanical Garden,, 
is a specimen of rust from Porto Rico, inscribed Puccinia con- 
crescens E. & E., accompanied by a diagnosis in Mr. Ellis’ hand- 
writing. This name, as I have previously stated (Jour. Myc. ii: 
10. 1905)? appears not to have been published. In the absence 
of a usuable name, the one given by Ellis may be brought for- 
ward, and it is here presented with Ellis’ description slightly 
modified. 
