172 PROCEEDINGS: BOSTON SOCIETY NATURAL HISTORY. 
different groups of fungi,— to the Discomycetes, the Pyrenomycetes, 
the Myxomycetes, the Ustilagineae, various divisions of the Hyphomy- 
cetes, etc. This has undoubtedly been due to two factors: first, to 
the great variety of forms which have from time to time borne the 
name Aegerita, and, second, to the lack of careful microscopic exami¬ 
nation of these fungi by the earlier writers, and to ignorance of their 
method of development. By recent writers the genus is referred to 
the Tubercularieae of the Hyphomycetes. About twenty species 
have been described. “Five species are reported from North America, 
of which some are rather doubtful” (Pound & Clements, ’97). 
In “Symbolae mycologicae,” Fuckel refers to the close association, 
upon wet sticks, of Aegerita Candida and a Corticium which he calls 
Corticium lacteum Fr. On account of this contiguity, and the close 
resemblance of the hyphae and spores, Fuckel was convinced of the 
generic connection of the two fungi. He believed that the mycelium 
from the germinating basidiospore produced either Aegerita fructifi¬ 
cations or Corticium hymenia, according to weather conditions, 
especially as regards moisture. 
The identity of two fungi cannot be positively affirmed, however, 
merely on account of contiguity and mycelial resemblances. This 
fact can be absolutely demonstrated only by growing the fungi in pure 
cultures, a line of proof which the writer has followed in the present 
investigation. The Basidiomycete concerned appears to be a new 
species of Peniophora, and not Corticium lacteum Fr., as Fuckel sup¬ 
posed. 
Aside from this note of Fuckel’s, no statement bearing upon the 
affinities of this species has come to the writer’s notice, and, so far as 
he is aware, no other species of this genus has been connected with the 
perfect form of any fungus.. 
Other species of Aegerita cultivated. — Knowing the basidiomycetous 
nature of Aegerita Candida, it seemed not unlikely that other species 
of this genus might have similar affinities. Hence two undetermined 
species were cultivated by the writer, but without important results. 
The first was with difficulty induced to grow in the laboratory, and 
finally the culture was lost. The other species has very large hyphae, 
devoid of clamp connections, and has as yet given no clue to its rela¬ 
tionships. Apparently, however, these species are not Basidiomycetes 
since the habit of the mycelia is quite unlike that common to most 
members of this class. 
