MYCOLOGICAL NOTES 
C. G. LLOYD 
Page 922 
showing that the plant grows with the face up. He described it in 
1853 but did not illustrate it until twenty years later and he made 
a mist alee in describing and showing it with the face superior. 
Every time the continental mycologists found this rare plant 
they usually discovered it was a new species. Petouillard called it 
Guepmia tostus and in addition found that it is a "new genus 1 '. 
Saccar&o misreferred it evidently to Peziza buccina of Persoon and 
called it Guepinia buccina. Quelet first referred it to Tremella 
lutescens (sic) and gave a poor figure in an inverse position and 
records that the “hymenium is exterior formed of fine nerves". He 
evidently did not Enow what was the hymenium. Afterward he referred 
it to Peziza merulina of Persoon. He war 
short record but he may have guessed rightly. He al 
as having the hymenium "supere", which I suppose is 
under side as it grows on the under side. Leveille 
surely guessing on PersoonS 
so described it 
French for the 
is said to have 
left a figure of it 
c* 
Ct o 
a GanthereHus which with other "precieuse 
collection iconographique" ?;as destroyed by the naughty Germans 
during the siege of Paris. 
De Bar3?" gathered the plant and sent a specimen to Montagne 
labeled Guepinia striata. His collection was distributed, however. 
as far as 
by Rabeiihorst as "Dacryomyces contorta. Fries" but Fries 
I learned never proposed such a name and it seems to have originated 
with Cesati. Montagne got two little specimens from Chile which he 
described as "cocainea" and called Guepinia crassipes. I did not 
cut them but I thought they were Guepinia Peziza. Masses got this 
rare plant from Jamaica, discovered it was a new species and called 
it Guepinia venosa. Goohe records it from Australia as Guepinia 
merulina. Tahe it altogether this rare little plant has had quite 
an enjoyable time being named. 
We present in our Fig.1650 a photograph of this 
lection from Mr. Weis. 
fine col- 
ALEUROBISCUS APICULATUS FROM C. N. FORBES, HAWAII (Fig. 1652) 
The genus Aleurcdiscus of the most recent writers (Hoehnel, Bourdot 
and Burt) is incongruous and very embarrassing for it' embraces Cor- 
ticiums, Stereums and Cyphellas of the older workers. However, it 
is easily recognised from a section for the large spores and basidia 
are noticeable at once and in addition most species have "paraphyses 
which assume bizarre shapes. Burt designates them as “moniliiorn", 
"bottle brush", "aculeate pronged", "slender branched", "spirally 
twisted", “racemose" 
, __ and "co chroacli » 
alilie in any two species - + 
The genus Aleurodiscus 
according 
hape". They hardly seem to be 
uo the figures they draw of then. 
j as 
wv...v based on the old Peziza amorpha as named 
by Persoon. Fries put it in Thelephcra, afterwards in Ccrticium. 
They cite Rabenhorst for the genus Aleurodiscus but the citat:'"’ 
while “legal" is misleading for Rabenhorst was only the first __ 
who had wrong ideas of it. Mycological advertisers pay no attention 
to mistakes as long as they get their dates right. Pech made the 
on 
fellow 
same mistshe that Rabenhorst did but as it was a year or two later 
he does not get any credit for it in the advertisements. All the 
earlier worlcers with the microscope who worhed with Aleurodiscus, 
Berkeley, Broome, Rabenhorst, Coohe, Pech, had various delusions. 
Most of them thought the basidia were asci. I thinb it was De Bury 
who first showed a correct figure of the basidia and spores on 
