THE INNER PERIDIUM. 
The inner peridium of Geasters is generally dull, flaccid, soft. 
It is either globose or more or less ovate, often tapering to the base. 
Sometimes it is pedicellate, sometimes sessile and this feature is a pri¬ 
mary character in several authors’ classification. I do not however, 
feel that it is of primary importance for I think the length of the pedi¬ 
cel, in some species, is dependent largely on the extent that the outer 
peridium is reflexed or drawn away from the inner. Geaster rufescens 
I believe varies in having the inner peridium sessile or distinctly 
pedicellate. 
The Mouths of the Inner Peridium are of three types. 1st, 
not defined but simply a torn aperture; 2nd, distinct, usually conical, 
but even. 3rd, strongly sulcate. I think Geasters are more strongly 
characterized by their mouths than by any other feature. In addition 
some Geasters have the mouths seated on a definite circular area 
strongly marked, and differing in shade of color from the balance of 
the inner peridium. Such mouths we call definite. In others the 
mouth is conical and distinct but is not marked with a definite area. Such 
we call indefinite. While the various species are characterized by 
having in general definite or indefinite mouths we think it is not rare 
that individual plants of a species usually having indefinite mouths 
may have a definite mouth or vice versa. 
In addition to these characters above we read of “dentate” 
mouths especially in connection with G. rufescens, and such a mouth is 
clearly shown on Schmidel’s drawing. We believe however, that it is 
purely in error, and as that error has been handed down in our descrip¬ 
tions for 150 years it is time we were rid of it. 
We also read of fimbriate mouths, especially in connection with 
G. fimbriatus. Most Geasters of the even-mouthed series have ap- 
pressed hairs around the mouth, and when the plant is old and weather 
worn these hairs become frayed and take on a fimbriate appearance, 
but that it is a character, I do not believe. 
We have seen specimens with an even mouth, rimose, and ap¬ 
pearing at first sight as if sulcate. That is simply the result of the 
way the plant dries and its occurrence is rare. It was from such a 
specimen Schaeffer (1761) drew his figure on which G. coronatus (forni- 
catus of many authors) was based, and hence the error that persists for 
140 years that “Geaster fornicatus has a sulcate mouth.” No forni¬ 
cate species of Europe has to my knowledge a sulcate mouth. 
“Pectinate” mouth is a term used in connection with Geasters. 
A pectinate mouth would be composed of narrow segments set parallel 
like the teeth of a comb. Such mouths are often shown in illustra¬ 
tions, as in Chevallier’s cut of “G. minimus” and in Massee’s beautiful 
but inaccurate figures of Geasters in the Annals of Botany. We do 
not think that such a mouth occurs in nature but are exaggerated 
conceptions of sulcate mouths. A plant with a sulcate mouth might 
have the divisions broken apart and thus become “pectinate,” but we 
have never seen one and do not believe they occur. 
4 
