far as I know this method of spore dispersion noted and described by 
Hitchcock nearly eighty years ago, is peculiar to the genus. The 
series of photographs by Prof. Beardslee, (plate 8, fig. 7), show this 
spore-sac in various states of contraction.* 
THE ROOTING STRANDS. 
Another feature unknown to me in other genera, is the long, 
thick bundle of root-like strands by which the peridium is attached to 
the soil. These strands are somewhat gelatinous when fresh, but dry, 
hard and rigid. They are shown in all our photographs of the various 
species. 
GLASSIFICATION. 
The original species was early figured and described from this 
country. The genus has since been found in India, Java, Australia 
and various portions of the world, but it does not occur in Europe. 
We have in our collection specimens only of the American forms. 
Our native .species were very much confused and but little known until 
a young man by the name of Burnap, one of Prof. Farlow’s students, 
straightened them out in 1897. 
KEY TO THE SPECIES. 
Spores globose.M. lutescens. 
Spores elliptical... 
Endoperidium red.M. cinnabarinus. 
Mouth only red.M. Ravenelii. 
219—MITREMYCES LUTESCENS. 
(Plate 9). 
Rooting strands long, compact, yellowdsh. Exoperidium light 
yellowish, rough externally and but slightly (if at all) gelatinous,f 
'separating by splitting into irregular segments, which remain (par¬ 
ti all) 7 ) at the base of the endoperidium like the petals of a flower. 
Endoperidium pale orange yellowish smooth. Rayed mouth bright 
red when fresh, fading out in old specimens. 
Spores globose ,X verrucose, 7-8 mic. 
This species, I judge from plants that have reached me, to be 
the rarest of all. It is readily distinguished from all other American 
species by its globose spores and yellowish peridium. Burnap has seen 
specimens from Alabama and West Virginia. We have them only 
from Tennessee and District of Columbia. Prof. Shear tells me he 
finds it to be the common species about Washington, D. C. 
*Massee notes that the sac sometimes protrudes through the slits of the mouth. We think 
this is unusual, as we have never seen an example, although we have collected and handled hun¬ 
dreds of specimens. 
fThese conclusions about the exoperidium are derived from the dried specimen. I have 
never seen the plant growing. Possibly my opinion as to the slightly gelatinous nature of this 
membrane is in error, 
J. Schweinitz (1822), illustrated Mitremyces lutescens with gl' hnxe *porer, and well shows 
other characters of the plant, and it would appear from his published work that he knew cinna¬ 
barinus. It is therefore strange that the specimens in his collection to-day, as well as the speci¬ 
mens he sent Berkeley, labeled “ lutescens ” are cinriabarinus. Corda (1842), pointed out the spore 
distinction between lutescens and cinnabarinus, but put them in two genera. Massee, misled by 
Sehweinitz’s misnamed specimens (1888), states that lutescens is the young condition of cinnaba¬ 
rinus, while Morgan (who only had cinnabarinus) (1889), states that “they are evidently the 
same species.” 
