106 
Jour7ial of Mycology 
[Vol. & 
ANOTHER MUCH-NAMED FUNGUS. 
W. A. KELLERMAN. 
In the February number of this Journal was published by 
Ellis and Kellerman, the description of a fungus supposed to be 
new to the literature of Botany. The figure which accompanied 
the description served well to convey to the botanists at Home 
and abroad a clear and accurate idea of the characters of the 
organism in question. 
Professor Morgan and other eminent mycologists very kindly 
notified me promptly that it was a species described many years 
ago — though we had thought that the variation from Corda’s 
species was unmistakable and as great as in case of many other 
plants proposed as new by botanists of more or less repute. 
We are now quite willing to recede from our position and 
apologize for the unfortunate mistake made. It may not, how¬ 
ever, be impertinent to remark that the case is perhaps not with¬ 
out its value in furnishing a convincing demonstration of the 
value, may I not say necessity, of invariably publishing figures of . 
all the fungi (especially of the microscopic forms) proposed as 
new. 
The synonomy which I give below shows that more than 
once before, when this form was issued as previously unde¬ 
scribed, the error was not readily or at all detected by most 
of the botanists, whereas figures might have arrested the at¬ 
tention of all the mycologists. 
Two of the published names should perhaps first be specially 
mentioned, one by Pound and Clements and the other by R. 
Maire. Dr. Frederic E. Clements advised me that our species 
was published by him in The Univ. of Nebr. Bot. Stud. Ill, 
under the name of Botrytis (Polyactis) doryphora Pound & 
Clements, afterwards changed to Phymatotrichum doryphora 
Pound & Clements. I submitted a specimen to the latter for 
inspection, and he kindly returned the favor by sending a speci¬ 
men of his species. We were both able to confirm the accuracy 
of his first judgment. 
Herr Prof. Dr. Magnus of Berlin kindly wrote me a letter 
with full description and drawings, made from material I sent, 
which can not be reproduced in full here, but the following 
extracts will illustrate his judgment in regard to the same: 
“Wie Sie schon in Ihrem werthen Schreiben 'vermuthen, ist 
es ein Botryosporium. . . .Was die Art anbetrifft, so 
scheint sie mir am meisten mit Botryosporium pulchellum R. 
Maire ubereinzustimmen. Wie bei dieser Art sind die Haupt- 
faden der Conidien-trager einfach, ‘ramulis acropetis, simplici- 
bus, a pice inHatis >, 4-6-tuberculatis, tuberculis capita triloba ger- 
entibus.’ Alles dieses stimmt genau, und Saccardo- hebt noch 
