EYCOPERDON EXCIPULIFORME. 
An “excipuium” was a vessel used by the Romans to contain 
liquids something the shape of a “Florence Flask” of the druggists of 
the present day. Scopoli, who gave the name, refers to Vaillant t. 12 
f. 15 and that figure is well enough shown so that it can be recognized, 
as Fries has it, as a form of Eycoperdon gemmatum. The early 
botanists, Persoon. Merat and Desvaux from their specimens and 
Vittadini from his description applied the name to the plant now called 
Eycoperdon saccatum (or rather Calvatia saccata) a very common 
species of Europe, usually this ‘ excipuium” shape. Recently Hollos 
applied it to a plant with a fine cortex and almost smooth spores. 
There is not a particle of evidence to support it. Owing to the past 
confusion as to the name and the further fact that Vaillant’s and 
Scopoli’s plant has a much better name. L. gemmatum, I think the 
name E- excipuliforme should be dropped. 
EYCOPERDON SACCATUM. 
Since Fries’ Systema which is authority for the name, not Vahl, 
as usually cited, this plant has almost universally been known under 
this name, and we favor continuing it, or rather Calvatia saccata, the 
plant being a Calvatia. Fries cites the characteristic figure “FI. Dan.’ 
t. 1189” and there has never been any question about the plant or the 
name since. Some day however, it will be discovered that Persoon 
described a prior Eycoperdon saccatum which has escaped Saccardo’s 
sweep-net, and then there will be a general juggling about. 
GEASTER SCHMIDEEI. 
Dr. Hollos has changed the above to Geaster nanus, a change 
that would be very desirable if it were based on truth. The Doctor 
has probably formed his opinion solely on Persoon’s figure, which does 
not show the pedicel and could well be taken for G. Schmideli, and 
overlooked Persoon’s statement “Le petiole est tres court et dilate pour 
V ordinaire au dessons du peridie en forme de bourrelet.” The Doctor 
knows the geasters of Europe well enough to know there is but one 
species, Geaster Bryantii, that answers to Persoon’s remarks. It is 
unfortunate because it would be a better name for the plant. Besides, 
Geaster Schmideli, while well authenticated by Vittadini’s specimens, 
as well as his figure and description, was originally based on an error 
as Schimidel never illustrated the plant. 
TYEOSTOMA MOEEERIANUM. 
I imagine I can see a broad smile come over Bresadola’s face 
when he learns that Hollos states that his Tylostoma Mollerianum is a 
synonym for Tylostoma mammosum. Bresadola describes his plant as 
having a plane lacerate mouth and I expect no one knows better than 
Bresadola that Tylostoma mammosum has a tubular protruding mouth. 
But Hollos has some grounds for his opinion. He has seen at Berlin 
Roumeguere’s exsiccata purporting to be this plant (and the plant is 
advertised “Bres. & Roum.”) which is undoubtedly Tylostoma 
mammosum. The same can be found at the British Museum. It has 
187 
