158 PROCEEDINGS: BOSTON SOCIETY NATURAL HISTORY. 
do not resemble basidia, nor has the basidiomycetous nature of the 
fungus been proven in any way. Yet the authors of systematic 
treatises of the Thelephoraceae (Saccardo, ’88, in the “Sylloge,” and 
Hennings, ’97, in “Pflanzenfamilien”) assume that the spores, hymen- 
ium, etc., of Michenera are homologous with structures of the same 
name in Corticium, and the two genera are placed side by side. This 
error is due to the acceptance of the descriptions and classification given 
by the first observers of this plant who had but a very imperfect knowl¬ 
edge of it. 
A careful examination of the structure and development of Miche¬ 
nera artocreas proves conclusively that its spores are not basidio- 
spores, nor is there any internal evidence of a basidiomycetous nature. 
It is true that a Corticium hymen ium is usually found in the neigh¬ 
borhood of the Michenera, but the only argument thus far advanced 
in proof of their connection is the inconclusive one of contiguity. 
Peirce (’90, p. 308) made a study of herbarium specimens and con¬ 
cluded that such neighboring hymenia ‘‘have nothing whatever to do 
with Michenera artocreas ,” and that “the basidial stage of Michenera 
artocreas either does not exist at all, or it is so completely replaced 
by the conidial stage (represented by the flask-shaped cells) that it 
very seldom appears.” Patouillard (’91b) examined material col¬ 
lected by Wright in Cuba, and decided that the species should be 
removed from the Thelephoraceae and placed among the Uredineae 
on account of the character and method of formation of its spores. In 
a later paper (’00, p. 67), however, Patouillard abandons this view 
and says: “Le genre Michenera, Berk. & Curt, doit etre rattache a 
Corticium comme forme conidifere.” He observed a Corticium 
growing closely about the Michenera. “Ce Corticium presente une 
trame filamenteuse d’hyphes identiques a celles de la paroi des cupules 
de Michenera et en continuity avec cette paroi.” On this account he 
unhesitatingly connects the two forms and agrees with Peirce in calling 
the peculiar spores of the Michenera chlamydospores of the Corticium. 
The writer has also observed the absolute similarity between the 
tissue forming the base and sides of the Michenera cup and the medulla 
of an adjacent Corticium hymenium, but it is impossible to trace the 
continuity of the interlacing hyphae with sufficient certainty to estab¬ 
lish an organic connection between the two fungi. 
The Corticium appears on the under side of the host branch, and 
the Michenera, when present, on the upper side. On fallen branches,. 
