1028 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
cies collected in that state since the publication of the previous 
lists. About 75 species are included in Earle’s list. 
Morgan (Discomycetes of the Miami valley, Jour. Mycol., 
vol 8: 179-192, 1902) has described several new species from 
that region and has given the synonymy as he understood it of 
the 120 species listed. Miss Bachman has discussed about 70 
species of Discomycetes from the vicinity of Oxford, Ohio 
(Proc. State Acad. Sci., vol. 5: 19-61, 1908). The Minnesota 
Discomycetes have been well described by Miss Hone (Minne¬ 
sota Helvellineae. Minn. Bot. Stud., 3: 209-321, 1904; Pezi- 
zales, Phacidiales, and Tuberales of Minnesota. Minn. Bot. 
Stud., 4: 65-132, 1909). Her papers include about 100 spe¬ 
cies, several of which are illustrated. A local paper which is 
of great help to a student beginning the study of this group has 
been issued by Seaver (Iowa Discomycetes, Bull. Lab. Hat. 
Hist. State TTniv. Iowa., vol. 6: 41—21*9, 1910). His keys to 
the families, genera, and species, and also his illustrations show¬ 
ing the diagnostic characters of the species which he has noted 
are especially helpful. The “Report of the State Botanist, 1908” 
(H. Y. State Mus. Bui. 131) contains a list of 135 new species 
of Discomycetes from America that have been described by 
Peck. A complete monograph of the Horth American Geoglos- 
saceae was issued by Durand (Ann. Myc., vol. 6, 1908). Very 
complete bibliographies of the literature dealing with the Dis¬ 
comycetes of America may be found in certain of the papers 
cited above. 
The writer wishes to acknowledge his appreciation of the 
services rendered him by Dr. H. Rehm in determining a large 
number of the species. The descriptions of all the new species 
which have been sent to Rehm from ‘Wisconsin by the writer 
and others are copied here without change except where 
there was evidently a misunderstanding of the data 
furnished by the collectors. The types in all cases 
are in Rehm’s herbarium. The collection first men¬ 
tioned after the description is the one sent to hiim This Ina- 
terial was divided and a part was retained in the herbarium of 
the Hniversify of Wisconsin. I have made these specimens the 
basis of comparison for other collections. The species are ar¬ 
ranged according to the classification given in Rehm’s “Discomy- 
cotes.” 
