“gleba with radial disposed lamellae” is misleading. The tramal 
plates are lamellate but they are strongly convolute and sinuate. 
When Berkeley met plants of the genus from South Africa, no doubt 
misled as to the nature of the plates of Gyrophragmium he founded 
on them a new genus, Polyplocium, which Fischer in Engler & Prantl 
characterizes as having “gleba with pore formed chambers.” These 
“pore-like” chambers are formed by the sinuosities of the tramal 
plates as shown in our figures (31 and 32) and there is no structural 
difference between “Polyplocium inquinans” of South Africa and Gyro¬ 
phragmium Delilei of Northern Africa. The principal difference is in 
the spores, the former having ovate, the latter globose spores. Indeed 
Berkeley’s illustration of “Polyplocium inquinans” (copied in Engler & 
Prantl) is a fair representation of our Western plant. Montagne’s 
figure, we think, is the one at fault. 
We will not go into detail here regarding its history in American 
works. It has been called by almost every name but the right one. 
Originally sent years ago, from California, it was referred to the South 
African species Polyplocium inquinans. Harkness so records it and in 
addition describes a new species Polyplocium Californicum based we 
believe (having seen his specimens) on slender forms of the same plant. 
It was described from Texas as Scleroderma Texense, afterwards 
changed to Secotium Texense, and still later to Gyrophragmium 
Texense. In very recent years it was described as a “ new species,” 
Secotium decipiens. The plant is fairly frequent in the sand along the 
Pacific Coast and in the semi-arid regions of the South West. We 
have been abundantly supplied with specimens through the kindness 
of E. A. Greata to whom we extend our special thanks- 
148— Noth 4— MITREMYCES. 
It will be noted that we do not follow the recent monographer 
'of this genus who dug up an old doubtful name in an obscure French 
journal to displace a name concerning which there was no doubt, and 
which had become attached to the genus by eighty years constant use, 
by such authorities as Fries, Schweinitz, Corda, Berkeley. This sub¬ 
stitution had not even the merit of being based on antiquarian research, 
for it had been known, recorded and rejected by such men as Fries. 
Nees von Esenbeck’s name, Mitremyces “mitre-fungus” is the most 
appropriate name that can be applied to the plant because the ‘ 1 mitre- 
mouth ” is a prominent and peculiar character of the plant; Calostoma 
“beautiful mouth” is quite indefinite. Nees illustrated the genus 
well and no question can be raised as to the identity of the plant he 
had in view. It required half a page of argument in the attempt to 
show that this was Desvaux’ plant. The only result of such work is to 
make “ new combinations” to which the monographer could add his 
name and we submit, the ends do not justify the means. 
149— Note 5—LYCOPERDONS. 
We are particularly anxious to get all the material we can re¬ 
garding this genus, though at this writing we have not closely studied 
it. Hence many plants received are recorded simply as species. 
69 
