252—GrEASTER FLORIFORMIS. 
From material sent by Mr. Long and from other sources abund¬ 
antly since our Geaster pamphlet was issued (cfr. The Geastrae, p. 11 and 
43), we are thoroughly convinced that Dr. Hollos is right, that Morgan’s 
delicatus was described from imperfect material, and that the plant 
does have normally a protruding mouth and often an elongated form. 
As Vittadini has therefore more accurately described and figured 
the plant, we have no further reason to retain Morgan’s name. Nor 
is the plant the “little” species we supposed. In a collection of a 
hundred or more received from C. H. Baker, Florida, not one of them 
was as large as a pea, and yet we have in our collection now all grades 
of size up to cm. in diameter. As the plant reaches the size of 
G. mammosus, and as that species is only distinguished by its definite 
mouth, an unstable character (see The Geastrae, p. 4), we would not 
be surprised to receive any day specimens that we would not know 
whether to refer to G. floriformis or G. mammosus. 
Among Mr. Long’s specimens were a few not so strongly hygro¬ 
scopic as called for in the description; in fact, had they been sent 
separately we should have referred them to G. arenarius, This raises 
the question if G. arenarius is not, in fact, a slightly hygroscopic form 
of G. floriformis. The plants from Jupiter, Florida, from which the 
species was described, however, have smaller spores. 
OTHER SPECIES. 
Among a lot of typically asperate specimens of G. asper were a 
few evidently the same, but smooth. Is the supposed asperate char¬ 
acter of G. asper of any value? One lot of plants were intermediate 
between G. pectinatus and G. Schmidelii. We have labeled them G. 
Schmidelii, but it is a question whether they are large, long-pedicellate 
G. Schmidelii, or small, short-pedicellate G. pectinatus. 
As different as our illustrations of G. triplex and G. saccatus 
var. major may appear, we have specimens not only from Mr. Long, but 
from others that we do not know whether to consider as a large 
form of G. saccatus or a small form of G. triplex. As distinct as the 
extreme forms appear to be, intermediate specimens occur that seem to 
connect them. 
253 —A CORRECTION. 
In the foot note on page 425, we state that “ Corda (1842), 
pointed out the spore distinction between Mitremyces lutescens and 
cinnabarinus, but put them in two genera." This we erroneously 
inferred from what Burnap states (our copy of Corda being loaned ). 
We find on return of the book that Corda “put them in two genera," 
but he did not “point out the spore distinction,” and apparently did 
not know the plants. He copied the genera from Desveaux and Nees 
von Esenbeck, and evidently had no suspicion that they were the 
same. 
143 
