Davis— Notes on Parasitic Fungi in Wisconsin — -VII. 401 
This, of course, suggests that the proposed genus may have been 
founded upon abnormal material. However, there are fungi that 
seem to have normally the structure attributed to Septoriopsis, 
i. e., a dark, cellular, tuberculiform pseudostroma emerging from 
the leaf and bearing sessile scolecospores. An example of this is 
Cercospora leptosperma Pk. Another is Cercospora longispora 
Pk. I would not refer these to Tuberculariaceae because the cellu¬ 
lar pseudostroma is similar to that from which arise the conidio- 
phores of many Hyphales, but rather to Mucedinaceae microne- 
meae. In this position the genus, if the type is normal, might be 
made to fill the gap to which I adverted in “Notes” III (p. 255). 
As to Cercospora longispora Pk: As I see it the dark “flocci” 
of the author’s description are not conidiophores of the parasite 
but instead the conidia arise in tufts directly from small, dark, 
tuberculiform pseudostromata. 
With this coi ■‘ption of the genus I am writing Septoriopsis 
longispora comb. 
Cercos n l ngisvova, Pk. 35th "Report p. 141. 
SeptoriopSx (Pk.) n. comb. 
Cercospora < na tk. 30th Report p. 55. 
Cylindrosporu ■;tospermum Pk. Trans. Wis. Acad. 14: 91, 
17: 883. 
Cercosporella leptosperma (Pk.) Davis Trans. Wis. Acad. 19: 706. 
While these fall in Hyphales their phylogenetic relationship is 
probably with Septoria and the name is therefore an appropriate 
one. 
Cylindrosporium tradescantiae Ell. & Kell, forms well developed 
pycnidia, and I am therefore referring it to Septoria. 
Phleospora oxyacanthae (Kze. & Schm.) Wallr. was erroneously 
given as PM. crataegi in the provisional list. There is a note on 
this fungus in “Notes” III (p. 254), where the proper name is 
used. 
In “Notes” II (p. 99), Populus balsamifera was given as a 
host of Fusicladium radio sum (Lib.) Lind with the statement that 
but a single collection had been made. In July, 1918, another 
collection on this host was made in the same locality, Sturgeon 
Bay. Like the previous one this collection differs from the form 
on Populus tremuloides and P. grandidentata and should, I think, 
be kept distinct. 
26—S. A. L. 
