Macrostilbum Pat., Bull. Soc. Mycol. France 14: 197. 1898. 
Type species (only original species) : Macrostilbum radicosum 
Pat. 
Notes: Clements and Shear (1931) treat the genus as belong- 
ing to the Deuteromycetes . Killermann (1928) considered it an 
Auriculariaceae. Donk (1958) did not treat it, considering it 
non-basidiomycetous . 
Monochaetopsi S Pat. in Pitard, Contrib. fl. Maroc p. 74. 1931. 
Type species (only original species) : Monochae top sis antir- 
rhini Pat. in Pitard. 
Notes: This genus has never been studied. Kendrick and 
Carmichael (1973) list it only as having been seen in Ainsworth 
(1971). 
Ovulariopsis Pat. & Har., J. Bot. (Morot) 14: 255. 1900. 
Type species (only original species) : Ovulariopsis eristi - 
phoides Pat. & Har. 
Notes: Considered by many workers to be the imperfect stage 
of Phyllactinia. 
Placosphaerella Pat., PI. Cell. Tunisie p. 121. 1897. 
Type species (only original species) : Placosphaerella 
tragacanthae Pat. 
Notes: There are at least two possible interpretations which 
can be made of the genus Placosphaerella. These alternatives are 
provided by certain ambiguities in interpretations of Article 10 
of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature . 
When Patouillard described Placosphaerella he included it 
in the Deuteromycetes. He wrote f? Cette plante a les caracteres 
d f un Ascochyta dont les peritheces seraient reunis par un stroma 
ou d f un Placosphaeria a spores didymes." The only species 
described and included was P. tragacanthae (Lev.) Pat. Petrak 
(1951) studied the specimen in Patouillard 1 s herbarium which was 
identified by Patouillard as Dothidea tragacanthae Lev. He found 
it to be composed of the stroma of an Omphalospora 9 . a perithecium 
of a Pleospora , and a Diplodina sp. On the grounds that this was 
a mixed specimen, composed of several unrelated elements, he 
rejected the genus. 
Had Patouillard described this specimen as a new species 
rather than identifying his specimen as Leveille’s species, 
Petrak 1 s conclusions would have been unquestionably correct. In 
many people f s minds a qestions remains as to what, in practice, 
is the type of a genus. Is the delimitation and concept of a 
genus to be based upon a concept of the type specimen of the type 
species or upon a concept of the material which was before the 
describing author? Different opinions about the genus Placo- 
sphaerella are derived depending upon which of these views is 
followed. 
Dothidea tragacanthae is now considered by most authors to 
