Mar. 1, 1925 
The Life History of Pilacre Faginea 
413 
the fungus. Since conidia develop 
abundantly on agar cultures and on 
pieces of sterilized beech branches in 
test tubes, it is to be expected that this 
stage will be found in nature if one 
looks for it at the right time. 
TAXONOMIC AND NOMENCLATORIAL 
RESUME 
This fungus, like most others, has 
had several generic and specific names 
applied to it. So far as known at 
present it was first described by Fries 
(13) in 1818 as Onygena faginea. 
Fries placed the fungus among the 
Gasteromycetes. This, however, is of 
little significance when we consider his 
conception of that group, which is 
indicated by the fact that he included 
in it not only true puff balls but also 
many Myxomycetes, Hyphomycetes, 
Discomycetes and even Agarics, for 
example, Nyctalis. The chief charac¬ 
ter upon which he relied, apparently, 
in determining relationship in these 
cases was the production of a powdery 
mass of spores of some kind. 
There seems to be no doubt in regard 
to the fungus described by Fries as 
Onygena faginea, as the writers are 
informed by Professor Juel of Upsala, 
Sweden, who has kindly searched 
Fries’s herbarium for them that there 
are several specimens of this species 
to be found there. One was sent by 
Schweinitz (34, p. 65) under the name 
Onygena decorticata Pers. and is men¬ 
tioned by Fries (16, p. 209) as 0. 
faginea Fr. and not Persoon’s species 
(29, p. 72). The writers have ex¬ 
amined duplicates of this gathering 
from Schweinitz’s collection and find 
them to be typical Pilacre faginea 
(Fr.) B. and Br. There is also a speci¬ 
men from Ohio in Fries’s herbarium sent 
by Berkeley under the same name, and 
a Swedish specimen, which Professor 
Juel says “ probably ought to be con¬ 
sidered as the type of the species 
Pilacre faginea. It is labeled in Fries’s 
hand “Ecchyna faginea Fr. Nobilis- 
sima Ferns jo.” Professor Juel says (in 
litt.) of this specimen “as far as I can 
see it is a typical specimen of what has 
been called “Pilacre petersii or P. 
faginea which I suppose to be synony¬ 
mous.” 
It requires very little study of this 
fungus to show that it does not belong 
in the genus Onygena of Persoon, the 
type of which is the common discomy- 
cete 0. equina, found on decaying 
hoofs and horns of animals. The 
generic name Onygena is now generally 
accepted and applied to the discomy- 
cete and probably no one would now 
suggest applying it to Pilacre faginea. 
Fries’s first description of the genus 
Pilacre was written in 1825 (15, p. 
364)- This description is too general 
and indefinite to connect it with any 
specific fungus at present. At the end 
of the description Stilbum incarnatum 
Weinmann (in litt.) is cited. Just 
what plant Fries had from Weinmann 
under this name no one has yet de¬ 
termined. Professor Juel has kindly 
searched through Fries’s herbarium 
for the specimen of this from Wein¬ 
mann but has been unable to find it 
under Pilacre or any of the various 
generic names which have at one time 
or another been suggested in connection 
with it; for example, Ecchyna, Ony¬ 
gena, Stilbum, and Roesleria. Pro¬ 
fessor Juel thinks it probable that the 
plant referred to was a lichen and the 
description certainly suggests Conio- 
cybe or Calicium. He finds under 
Calicium, specimens from Weinmann 
but nothing labeled incarnatum or 
Weinmannii. Fries, in 1829 (16, p. 
204 ), renamed the fungus, dedicating 
it to the collector, Doctor Weinmann 
of Petrograd. Dr. de Jaczewski of 
Petrograd has kindly made a search 
for Weinmann’s collections. In a letter 
just received he says: “About the 
collections of Weinmann, I am sorry 
to say there is nothing left, neither at 
the Academy nor anywhere else.” 
This species is therefore indeterminable 
and must be abandoned. 
Boudier (4) discussed Pilacre and 
asserted that it is synonymous with 
Roesleria of Von Thiimen. He based 
his conclusion primarily on the suppo¬ 
sition that P. weinmannii Fr., the origi¬ 
nal species of the genus, is identical with 
Roesleria hypogea Thiim. There is 
nothing in the original description of 
Fries to justify such a conclusion and 
he gives no evidence of having seen the 
type or authentic specimens. It seems 
far more probable that the original 
specimen of Weinmann was a lichen, as 
already mentioned and suggested by 
Professor Juel. The original name fncar- 
natum of Weinmann alone would seem 
to preclude the possibility of the fungus 
being Roesleria, which has no sugges¬ 
tion of such color in any stages of devel¬ 
opment. If further evidence were de¬ 
sired, it would be found in the statement 
that incarnatum was found growing on 
bark while Roesleria hypogea always, so 
far as known, grows underground on 
roots. 
Fries’s last mention of the genus was 
in 1849 (17, p. 361) where he gives a 
generic description only and says “Cfr. 
Weinm, Ross,” referring to Weinmann’s 
paper (37). Since Fries’s monotype of 
the genus can not be determined and 
since no other species were ever referred 
