291—GYROPHRAGMIUM AND POLYPLOOIUM 
I think that anyone who will study the types of Gyrophragmium 
Delilei at Paris and Polyplocium inquinans at Kew will reach the con¬ 
clusion that the two plants are co-generic. The only question to me is 
if they are not co-specific. They were published practically at the 
same time and I do not know how the question of priority of generic 
name will be decided. The plate of Polyplocium inquinans was pub¬ 
lished first, then came the description of Gyrophragmium and then the 
description of Polyplocium. I believe according to “rules” Gyro¬ 
phragmium stands, but whether it does or not, I shall adopt it for 
several reasons. 
1st. I think both authors thought their genera were practically the same, 
and each was hurried to get his name attached to it. Each labored to show that 
his genus was different from the other, and so well succeeded that the two genera 
have been carried in all compilations down to the present time. 
2nd. My sympathies are with Montagne for he received his plant several 
years before Berkeley, but he lost time in sending his specimens to Fries * and 
Berkeley as soon as he received the plant issued a named plate. When Montagne 
saw Berkeley’s plate, he came out at once with the description of the genus Gyro¬ 
phragmium before Berkeley had a chance to publish his genus. 
3rd. Gyrophragmium Delilei is not a rare plant in the Mediterranean 
countries and has been published and recorded a number of times under this name. 
Excepting a determination made by Harkness, the name Polyplocium inquinans 
has never been applied to a collection save the original specimen of South Africa, 
sixty years ago. 
4th. I think the genus Polyplocium although well illustrated, was mis¬ 
described as having capillitium mixed with the spores. I am unable to find any 
capillitium and think the character does not exist.! 
RELATIONS:—To my mind the genus Gyrophragmium has 
no place in the Gastromycetes. Its relations are more close to the 
Agarics. It is a connecting link between the two passing on one hand 
through Montaguites to Coprinus and on the other through Secotium 
to the true Gastromycetes. Montaguites and Gyrophragmium are very 
close genera and sometimes confused. Both have dark, almost black 
spores, borne on basidia, and lining “tramal plates”. In Montaguites 
the plates are radiately arranged as an Agaric, and can be well called 
gills. In Gyrophragmium, they are strongly, convolute and sinuate, 
forming by their sinuosity “pore-like” chambers.1 These are pores 
not closed excepting imperfectly, the tramal plates lying close to each 
other at their lower extremities. They do not form true cells. Mon¬ 
tague’s figure (copied in Engler & Prantl) shows the plates too regularly 
and serially arranged. Berkeley gives a much better fi gure of the plant. 
* Attention of priorists is called to the fact that the plant was first published by Fries as 
Montagnites Dunalii (Epici '-240) having been sent to him by Montagne under the name “ Agari- 
cus ocreatus Delile Mss.” This naturally provoked Montagne not a little, for the naming of a 
‘‘new species” unasked, by one author from specimens received from another writer on the same 
subject is not held to be good form Besides, Fries got the French names mixed, Dunal had 
nothing whatever to do with the plant. 
t I am aware that Corda in his figure, plainly shows the capillitium. but I think he made up 
his drawing to suit his ideas of what he thought ought to be. Corda’s figure is a copy of Berkeley’s 
with the addition of a cut showing the “capillitium.” 
In Saccardo the character “ Capillitium filamentosum ” is given as the key character of the 
genus. 
J Mr. E. A. Greata, Eos Angeles. Cal. has favored me with an account of the structure of a 
young plant, from observations of a fresh specimen. “A cross section, at first sight would ap¬ 
pear irregularly porous. A close examination however, shows lamellae densely crowded and 
pressed, much the same as you would obtain on a large scale by laying a number of thin damp 
cloths, one on top of the other and then holding them perpendicular and squeezing one end tightly 
into a circular form. There is only this difference, the lamellae are broken up into short pieces 
and do not seem to reach from the the stem to the periphery. 
195 
