Nov. 1905] The Genera Balansia and Dothichloe, Etc. 
253 
host, and fill the spaces between leaves, palae, etc., when these 
are involved as is the case when the fruiting axes of the host are 
affected. Stromata arising from the sclerotium, stipitate and cap¬ 
itate, or sessile, pulvinate, obovate, discoid, or separated from the 
sclerotium by a constriction, germinating from the sclerotium 
as soon as the latter is mature, surface slightly papillate from 
the ostiola of the immersed perithecia. Stroma well developed 
so that the bases of the perithecia are separated from the pseudo- 
sclerotium or host by abundant fungus tissue even in the sessile 
forms. Asci aparaphysate, 8-spored. Spores filiform, nearly 
equaling the asci. Conidial stage when present, so far as known, 
of the ephelial type, and preceding the stromata. 
But what specific name shall be used to designate the species in 
the United States? We cannot be certain that Ephelis mexicana 17 
Fr. is the conidial stage of the Balansia from Texas, though I 
believe very likely it is. While some would employ the earliest 
specific name, even though applied to an imperfect form, 18 the 
better usage seems to be that which recognizes the earliest specific 
name applied to the perfect form 19 and Balansia hypoxylon is also 
a more appropriate name than Balansia mexicana. Pending the 
action of the International Botanical Congress at Brussels in 1910 
it seems advisable to follow this usage. 
In referring to the effused specimens on the stems of Uniola 
from South Carolina Berkeley says, 20 “Nothing can at first sight 
be more different than the effused specimens on the stem of 
Uniola; but others on Uniola are much larger than the Khasia 
specimen insomuch that the species was first named D. pilu- 
17 While the genus Ephelis was founded by Fries in 1849 (Summa 
Veg. Scand., 370) he does not appear to have published the specific name 
nor a specific description. Berkeley in Cuban Fungi (Jour. Linn. Soc., 
io, 353, 1869) gives a description of the species as follows: 
“567. Ephelis mexicana Fr., Fung. Mex. (729). On the inflores¬ 
cence of grasses, which it changes into a black solid mass, somewhat after 
the fashion of Dilophosporium. Hab. Mexico. Hymenium exposed, 
bearing slender thread-like spores .001 inch long, on delicate sporophores. 
The fungus resembles a Peziza on a black solid stroma.” 
For Ephelis mexicana Fr. writers usually cite both Fries’ Summa 
Veg. Scand., and Fung. Mex. Thus far I have failed to find any trace 
of such a publication by Fries. Mr. Lars Romell, of Stockholm, in 
reply to an inquiry concerning “Fung. Mexic.” writes me, “So far as we 
can see — Dr. and Professor Fries have assisted me in this search — no 
work or paper of Elias Fries’ hand exists under the name ‘Fungi Mexi- 
cani.’ What the designation ‘Fung. Mexic.’ will mean I can thus not 
say at present.” It is possible that Fries’ reference “Fung. Mexic.” 
refers only to a collection of plants from Mexico, and Berkeley may have 
supplied the specific name or possibly have used a manuscript name of 
Fries, or one which Fries had labelled a specimen with and which may 
liave been sent to Berkeley. 
18 See Arthur, J. C., on the Nomenclature of Fungi having many 
Fruit Forms, Plant World, 8 , 71-76, 99-103, 1905. 
“ See Farlow, W. G., Proc. A. A. A. S., 32 , 66, 1883. 
20 Hooker’s Jour. Bot., , 227, 1854. 
