MYCOLOGICAL NOTES C. G. LLOYD 
Page 906 
1906—1908 
1906-present 
1909-present 
1909-present 
1910 
1910-present 
1915 
1915-present 
1916 
1917 
1919-present 
1919-1920 
Research scholar. New York Botanical Garden, January 
of each year. 
Original member, newly federated Botanical Society of 
America* 
Member, American Phytopathological Society. 
Associate editor, Mycologia. 
Member, International Botanical Congress, Brussels 
(delegate of Botanical Society of America, Ameri¬ 
can Phytopathological Society, Torrey Botanical 
Club, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 
Washington Academy of Sciences and Indiana Academy 
of Sciences). 
Member, Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft. 
Research scholar, New York Botanical Garden. 
Professor emeritus of botany, Purdue University. 
Doctorate (LL.D.), University of Iowa. 
Research scholar, Hew York Botanical Garden. 
Member, American Philosophical Society. 
President, Botanical Society of America. 
Author of more than two hundred contributions to 
botanical literature* 
In recent years a large part of his time has been 
devoted to the investigation of plant rusts; he 
began to specialize in this group of fungi as 
early as 1833. 
THE GENUS THAMN0MYC3S 
Just about a hundred years ago (1820) Ehrenberg proposed 
the genus Thamnomyces for specimens collected in Brasil by Chamisso. 
He gave a characteristic figure and named the species Thamnomyces 
Chamissonis. Saceardo compiled Thamnomyces as a section of Xylaria 
but to_ our mind it is quite a different genus. We considered the 
genus m our first issue of the Pyrenornycetes pamphlet, but at that 
time supposed there was but one species in the section with Thamno¬ 
myces Chamissonis* We havQ now three quite distinct but similar 
species. 
Thamnomyces as figured and described by Ehrenberg has a 
carbonous stem, black, repeatedly dichotomously branched, each 
branch terminating in ovate fruiting bodies. The structure of these 
bodies as shown both by Ehrenberg and Moeller is that each is 
hollow and forms a simple carbonous perithecium. Cooke, it is true, 
proposed and figured a “new species" from British Guiana and 
showed numerous perithecia in the walls of the fruiting bodies, but 
it appears from his remarks - "a remarkable species uniting Thamno¬ 
myces more intimately with Xylaria" that he did not know what tne 
genus Thamnomyces is, for a photograph of his plant can hardly be 
told from the original species Thamnomyces Chamissonis, and we 
believe is the same genus notwithstanding the "remarkable" figure 
he gave, showing perithecia imbedded in the walls* 
It is apparent that there are two (probably three) species 
in Brazil, one with small spores and one with very large spores, and 
that the small spored species (about 4 X 16) which we received in 
abundance from Gustave Peckolt, is the original of Ehrenberg. We 
have not examined Ehrenberg’s type at Berlin but Rehm shows a 
small spore from a specimen from Uhl which he states was "compared 
with the type"* Moeller attributed to Thamnomyces Chamissonis 
