338 
Mycologia 
gata: Villa Alba, Maricao, Rosario, 84, 162, 16^, i/i, 742a, 481^; 
Miconia sp., Monte Alegrillo, 1335; Miconia Sintensii, St. Ana, 
6636; Tetrazygia sp., Jayuga, 300; Heterotrichum cymosum, 
Indiera Fria (Maricao), Manati, Ponce, Utuado, Maricao, 
Quebradillas, San Sebastian, Luquillo Forest, Jajome Alto, 
Giganta near Ad junta, Prestons Ranch, Dos Bocas, 3372, 4326, 
4374, 4380a, 4391, 4392, 4703, 4984, 3206, 3393, 3632, 3941, 6779, 
6839; on various Melastomataceae. 
This exceedingly common species in Porto Rico is undoubtedly 
Spegazzini’s P. perihehuyensis, as shown by a comparison with 
exsiccati of Roumeguere (Fungi Gallici Exsiccati 3234). Its 
systematic position becomes doubtful, however, when we examine 
the character of the stroma and its attachment to the leaf. No 
species of Phyllachora have been described which possess the 
central stroma attachment (see fig. 7) that this species possesses, 
and the more common species of Phyllachora such as P. graminis 
differ so much from this type both in the shape and relative posi- 
tion of the stroma that it would seem advisable to make this and 
other species of the same nature into a new genus. In Saccardo’s 
description of peribebuyensis, he questions the true position of 
the fungus and states that it is closely related to, though different 
from, Bagnisiclla, a closely allied form. His generic description 
also contains the statement that many forms have been collected 
under the genus name Phyllachora, which properly belong else- 
where. In keying the species out through the analytical tables 
offered by Saccardo and Lindau in Engler and Prantl, the species 
falls into Bagnisiclla and seems to be totally excluded from 
Phyllachora by the nature of the stroma. Saccardo, however, 
states that peribebuyensis is different from anything in Bagni- 
siella, and judging from descriptions and figures of Bagnisiclla, 
this is correct. Considering the character of the stroma alone, 
then, the erection of a new genus would seem to be necessary. 
Recent authors are, on the other hand, inclined to disregard 
stromal characteristics and to found classifications on more 
fundamental bases. The species has, therefore, been left in its 
original position because it is not different in other respects from 
typical species of Phyllachora. 
