108 
Journal of Mycology 
[Vol. 8 
THE GENUS ANGELINA Fr. 
ELIAS J. DURAND. 
The genus Angelina was established by Fries in 1849 t° 
include a single species, the Ascobolus conglomerate of Schwei- 
nitz. The original description of the genus indicated a plant 
with gelatinous ascomata, which became horny and closed in 
a hysteriiform manner when dry, the disk becoming papillate 
from the protuding asci. Schweinitz had already remarked the 
resemblance of this species to his own Hysterium rufescens , 
and Duby, concluding that the two species were identical, re¬ 
verted to the older name, so that the species has since passed 
under his combination as A. rufescens (Schw.) Duby. The same 
author quoted Fries to the effect that after an examination of 
two authentic specimens of H. rufescens in the herbarium of 
the Museum of Paris, he had concluded that one was simply 
an older stage of the other, and that it was this older condition 
which Schweinitz had called Ascobolus conglomeratus. This 
species he had already recognized as approaching more nearly to 
the Discomycetes than to the Pyrenomycetes. 
Schweinitz had originally described the plant as an Hys- 
terium because in the dried condition the margins were inrolled 
or approximated in an hysteriiform manner. In his later de¬ 
scription the supposedly different species was referred to As¬ 
cobolus because the disk appeared black-papillate from the pro¬ 
truding asci. Duby remarked correctly that Fries had exag¬ 
erated the gelatinous nature of the moist plant, but incorrectly, 
as I think, placed the genus in the Hysteriinieae. Boudier 
doubtfully included Angelina in the Ascobolaceae, while Sac- 
cardo and Ellis and Everhart placed it in the Hysteriaceae. 
Lindau puts it in the Ftysteriineae, family Hypodermataceae. 
I have recently had the opportunity of examining the types 
in the herbarium of Schweinitz, as well as of studying material 
in the perfectly fresh natural condition, in the vicinity of Ithaca. 
The following conclusions are based on these specimens. 
Schweinitz possessed several specimens marked Ascobolus con¬ 
glomerated Some one has separated these into two groups 
based on the color. In the first group the ascomata are crowded, 
elongated and variously bent and curved. The dry disk is widely 
exposed, and dark chestnut-brown. The exterior is the same 
color, but the margin is pale yellowish brown, the contrast be¬ 
ing quite strongly marked. In the second group the ascomata 
are similar in habit, form and color, but the margins are not 
perceptibly paler. The structural characters are identical in 
the two groups. The type of Hysterium rufescens is in color 
intermediate between the two. Its structural characters agree 
