MYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 917 
INSTITALE BOMBACINA (Fig. 742, p.539 ).- A very sinilar plant 
and probably co-generic, is pell known and far more common on the 
face of Pomes nppianatus* We gave a photograph of the plant from 
Deeper cn page 539, Pig,742, under the r.nns Sebacina dendroidea, 
f ! i 
but it has since been Proven that it is not a Sebacina, It is still 
a mystery, but as B our dot shovrs that it has spores direct on the 
hyphae are shall include it in the convenient “genus 1 ' Institale. 
Bourdot suggests that it is an outgrowth of the Pomes, an “expansion 
doubt 
to 
it for it is always loosely growing 
it. We gave in detail on page 533 
to Berkeley and Cooke which were 
Thelephora dendritica, stereum den- 
but 1 can not see any suggestion 
nyceliole conidi fere“• We 
on the Pomes, never ingrowing 
the “taxonomic 11 history as brown 
very much bulls. They called it 
dritica, Hymenochaete dendroidea. 
of or connection with either genus. 
While working in the Now York Garden herbarium recently I 
found a new clue to it, A specimen collected in the West Indies lay 
Murrill was indorsed as being a Hypomyces, by Burt, We have often 
wondered how Burt classed it for he side-stepped it in his account 
of the genus Thelephora and the plant has mostly so passed in tradi¬ 
tional American mycology. Then we found a specimen from Kars ten, 
named “Hypomyces bomb acinus, Karsten*'♦ Surely the plant 
si 
is no Hypo¬ 
myces, and Karsten has apparently mistaken the spores of 
as being the perithecia* That 
made when he apparently mistoc 
„ o 
) K 
about 
s ame 
u as bad a bull 
is 
snores as beir 
o 
the host 
Berkeley 
setae. 
From Kirsten 1 s account of “Hypomyces bombacinus 1 ' it appears that the 
plant was known to Pries as “Institale tombacina", but we are unable 
to find any mention of it in Fries* writings other than the bare 
name in his Summa vegetabilium Scrndinaviae, 
Since the above was written we have a letter from Annie 
Lorrain Smith, who is probably the best informed on Hyphomycetes, 
she refers with doubt what we have called above Institale alba to 
Cephelosporium humicola, which Oudemans records as growing on ground. 
and 
to Mr. I, B, Pole 
Evans for 
DIPLOCYSTIS AND BROOMEIA 
We wish to acknowledge our indebtednes 
fine specimen (Pig. 1640) of Broomeia ellipsospora. It 
completes the collection of these two rare genera for there are only 
three species, Broomeia congregate we have from Br. Kurt Dinter, 
Southwest Africa, and Diplocystis Wrightii we have abundantly from 
L. J. K. Brace, Bahamas. The genera have been much confused and they 
are so close it would be better if they were held as one genus, par¬ 
ticularly as it is in evidence that three men have discovered “new 
species 1 ' without knowing the difference between these two old genera. 
We contrasted the genera on page 194, but the main difference is that 
Diplocystis has a separate exoperidiun for each individual of the 
cluster, and Broomeia has a common exoperidiun that encloses the 
entire cluster. Broomeia is only known from South Africa and 
Diplocystis from the American tropics. There are three species, 
as foHows: 
BROOMEIA CONGREGATA (Compare Hyc. Notes, pp, 193 
and 
318 
Plate 31 and Fir 
in 1844. A good 
152) It 
account 
u S 
named and finely figured by Berkeley 
of 
it 
t-f •<*-. r-A 
J CAO 
;iven 
by 
George Murr ay 
