Morgan reconstructs a cut (Am. Nat. 1884, p. 967) based on this 
error. 
Specimens in our Collection. 
Florida, H. C. Culbertson, C. G. Lloyd. Louisiana, W. N. Clute. Forth 
Carolina, Hannah C. Anderson. South Carolina , P. H. Rolfs. Ohio, W. H. Aiken. 
Pennsylvania , Caroline A. Burgin, I)r. Wm. Herbst. Michigan, B. O. Longyear. 
Iowa, T. H. McBride. Canada, John Dearness. 
France, F. Boudier. Tirol, Rev. G. Bresadola. 
Explanation of Figures. 
Fig. 50. Specimens from W. H. Aiken, Ohio. Fig. 51. Specimens from 
Dr. Wm. Herbst, Pennsylvania. Fig. 51. Section. 
15—GEASTER ARENARIUS. 
Exoperidium subhygroscopic, cut to five to ten segments; dry¬ 
ing usually with segments incurved. Mycelial layer closely adnate 
with adhering sand. (*) Fleshy layer closely adnate, light color, not 
Fig. 63. Geaster arenarius. Fig. 64. Geaster arenarius. 
rimose. Inner peridium subglobose, with a very short but distinct 
pedicel in some specimens, m others appearing sessile. Mouth even, 
conical, acute, definite and usually darker colored than remainder of 
inner peridium. Columella indistinct. Spores globose, rough, 3-4 me. 
This little plant which I collected Feb. 1895, in the sand at 
Jupiter, Florida, I have never succeeded in getting named. My cor¬ 
respondents have suggested ‘‘G. saccatus” and “G. floriformis,” but 
I am sure it is neither of these. It is very close to minimus, differing 
in its shorter pedicel and more hygroscopic exoperidium. It is still 
closer to Smithii, excepting its mouth. 
Specimens in our Collection. 
Florida, H. C. Culbertson, C. G. Lloyd, (both from the sand at Jupiter, 
Florida.) 
Explanation of Figures. 
All specimens from Jupiter, Florida. The segments of the one closed are 
more strongly incurved than usual. 
(*) One specimen alone we have with the mycelial layer peeled away except at the tips, 
showing its relation to the fornicate section. 
28 
