THE CURTIS COLLECTION. 
I have looked forward to a visit to the Curtis collection in order 
to solve several problems that have always confronted me in the study 
of American “puff-balls.” Curtis was one of the earliest American 
mycologists, and sent most of the material on which Berkeley based his 
account of American species. With the aid of the specimens preserved 
in the Curtis collection we can learn definitely Berkeley’s views, for 
Curtis divided each collection, retained part in his own herbarium, 
sent part to Berkeley numbered to correspond, and Berkeley cited 
these numbers. In addition Berkeley sent to Curtis many plants that 
he had received from Lea, Sprague and many other American collect¬ 
ors. My opinion, as stated following, is formed from an external 
examination of the specimens. I did not make microscopic mounts as 
it would have involved more time than I could spare, and I feel so 
familiar with most of our species and their microscopic features that I 
am willing in most cases to risk my judgment on an external exami¬ 
nation. In a few instances, however, a spore study will have to be 
made before positive conclusions can be reached. Morgan and Peck 
have both printed opinions about Berkeley’s determinations, but as neither 
has seen the specimens, a number of their conclusions are erroneous. 
HYDNANGIUM RAVENHLII. 
I have known this plant for some time though I did not know 
this name for it. Mr. Bertolet sent it abundantly from Alabama, and 
Prof. Earle had previously given me specimens from the same locality. 
It is, Mr. Bertolet writes me, the most common Hymenogaster of the 
south. The .spores are reticulate-tuberculate, more reticulate than any 
other species. None of my European correspondents to whom I have 
sent the plant have recognized it, and it was proposed to call it 
“Hydnangium reticulatum.” I am glad I did not rush into print with 
this “new species” when I received it two years ago, as it is one name 
saved from the grave-yard. Berkeley published it as a variety of H. 
Stephensii, but I do not question its distinction from that species. 
“SCLERODERMA TEXENSE.” 
On page 69 of Mycological Notes I made the statement that it 
(Gyrophragmium Delilei) was described from Texas as Scleroderma 
Texense, afterward changed to Secotium Texense, and still later to 
Gyrophragmium Texense.” That statement is erroneous. The plant 
that Berkeley described as Scleroderma Texense has no resemblance to 
what he later described as Secotium Texense, nor does he so state. It 
was I who was confused. “Scleroderma Texense”now appears to me 
to be Scleroderma bovista, and “Secotium Texense” to be a small- 
spored form of “Gyrophragmium Delilei.” 
LYCOPERDON CALVESCENS. 
Without a spore examination it is difficult to say how this plant, 
cited by Berkeley (Wright 6366) is now known. It is not L. cruciat- 
um (L. separans) as Morgan surmises. The spines are very similar to 
those of L. pedicellatum, but Berkeley’s spore description removes it 
from that plant. I think it is ‘ L. echinatum” of Peck’s paper, afterward 
changed to L. Peckii by Morgan. 
152 
