177—BOVISTELLA AMMOPHILA. 
In connection with our article on Bovista and Bovistella in this 
issue we are reminded that the plant called by Leveille, Bovista am- 
mophila belongs to Bovistella having a strong tap root and a sterile 
base. Years ago McClatchie collected and distributed “Bovista am- 
mophila” from Los Angeles, Cal. We have some of his original 
specimens, and have seen them in various collections under this name. 
We could never see in what way they differ 
in the slightest from Bovista plumbea. We 
wrote to Prof. Patouillard for specimens of 
“Bovista ammophila”. He was unable to 
supply one, but writes “Bovista ammophila 
Lev. is a rare plant, very little known, even 
in France. It is usually considered here, on 
the authority of Quelet, as a form with long 
root of Bovista plumbea, but this is ‘une 
grosse erreur’ I have studied the original 
specimen of Leveille in the Museum de 
Paris and find that it is a Bovistella. It 
has a hard, rigid tomentose peridium, pedi¬ 
cellate spores, separate capillitium threads, 
and a well developed sterile base. We have 
also in France two other species. ’ ’ 
“1st, Bovistella radicata Mont., (= Bo¬ 
vistella Ohiensis Morg.).” 
“2nd, Bovistella paludosa (Lev.) (= Ly- 
eoperdon paludosa Lev. = Calvatia (!!) palu¬ 
dosa de Toni in Sacc Sylloge) .” 
It is safe to say that Bovistella ammophila has never been col¬ 
lected in this country. 
Massee gives a kind of caricature cut of this plant (Ann. Bot. 
Vol. 4, pi. 2, f. 40). We reproduce an illustration from “Roumeguere 
Champignons” (fig. 395) which from its close resemblance to the pen 
sketch that Patouillard sent us we are convinced was made from the 
original specimen of Leveille. 
178—A MISNAMED PLANT. 
Photography was the first work we did with fungi. We knew 
nothing on the subject of classification but had our plates named 
by those whom we thought knew. They were distributed as photo¬ 
gravures. One (No. 7) we sent out as Crucibulum vulgare. We had 
not worked with the fungi very long until we learned that this was 
not Crucibulum vulgare, and yet this plate has been distributed to 
^ hundreds of mycologists and no one has ever called our attention to 
the error. The plant is (teste Patouillard and Bresadola) Cyatlius 
stercoreus. The view that we presented of the plant, looking directly 
into the cups might mislead one at first sight. 
88 
Fi^. 50. 
Bovistella ammophila. 
(Copied from Roumeguere.) 
