Mar. 1, 1925 
The Life History of Pilacre Faginea 
415 
therefore say whether these are con¬ 
generic or not. P. pallida, E. & E. 
(12, p. 59) is a very different fungus, as 
the writers have determined by an 
examination of some of the original 
material upon which the species was 
based, and is certainly not congeneric 
with P. faginea. 
In view of the fact as already in¬ 
dicated, that the original type of the 
genus Pilacre of Fries is unknown and 
that the name has been generally 
applied for the last 74 years to the 
fungus originally named Onygena fagi¬ 
nea by Fries the writers propose to 
adopt Pilacre on the basis of general 
usage and assign to it as its type the 
common and well known species P. 
faginea , with which it has been so long 
associated. This procedure, they be¬ 
lieve, will best serve the primary 
purposes and aims of binomial nomen¬ 
clature, by fixing once for all with 
certainty the application of this well- 
known and established name, thus 
avoiding the necessity for any change 
in the future. It may be of interest 
to note that Moller (26, p. 54) arrived 
at the same conclusion in regard to 
the application of this generic name. 
The synonomy of this species so 
far as known at present is as follows: 
Onygena faginea Fr. 1818 (IS, p. 85.) 
Onygena decorticata Schw. 1822 (84, p. 65.) 
(Not 0. decorticata Pers. 1799. 89.) 
Phleogena faginea (Fr.) Link 1833 ( 84 , p. S96.) 
Pilacre friesii Weinm. in Linnaea 1834 (58, p. 
413 - 414 .) (Not P. friesii Weinm., in Flora, 
1832. 87, p.458.) 
Pilacre faginea (Fr.) Berk. & Br. 1850 ( 8 , p. 
865.) 
Botryochaete faginea (Fr.) Corda 1854. (9, 
p. 46 .) 
Ecchyna faginea Fr. 1857 (19, p. 151.) 
Pilacre petersii Berk. & Curt. 1859 (8, p. 868.) 
Stilbum pilacreforme Rich. 1881 (80) 
and 1882 (81, p. 241 ), cited as a syno¬ 
nym by Beckwith (2), does not appear, 
according to Richon's description, to 
be Pilacre. However, the writers have 
not seen Richon's specimens and so 
can not speak positively. 
MORPHOLOGY AND RELATIONSHIP 
As already stated, Fries (18) re¬ 
ferred this fungus to the Gastero- 
mycetes. This, however, has little 
significance on account of his lack of 
knowledge of the morphology and de¬ 
velopment of the fungus and also as it 
was the result of the most superficial 
observation. Neither Link nor Corda, 
both of whom renamed the fungus, 
added any thing of value to our know¬ 
ledge of it. Corda (9, p. 46), however, 
did consider it a basidiomycete and 
placed it next to the hypogaeous 
Gasteromycete, Melanogaster. He 
says that the family to which it 
belongs is doubtful and the genus is of 
uncertain affinity, but emphasizes the 
fact that it has basidia although he 
stated that they are 1- to 4-spored. 
The next writer to consider the 
relationship of this fungus was Tu- 
lasne (85, p. 294-295). He first 
regarded Pilacre as related to Ptycho- 
gaster, the conidial or chlamydospore 
condition of a Polyporus. Later 
(86, p. 228) he investigated the spore 
formation of Pilacre and made another 
interpretation comparing it to Hy- 
pochnus purpureus and regarding it 
as related to the Auriculariae. De 
Bary (1, p. 885) does not seem to 
have made any particular study of 
this fungus and gives Tulasne's earlier 
interpretation of it. The next con¬ 
tribution to our knowledge of this 
plant was made by Schroeter in 1877 
(83). In connection with a discussion 
of the systematic position of Tu- 
lostoma, he mentions Tulasne’s studies 
of Pilacre and states that according to 
his illustrations of the spore formation, 
these two fungi are very similar, and 
he says that instead of being closely 
related to Hypochnus, he regards it as 
much more closely related to Tulo- 
stoma, and concludes with the state¬ 
ment: “I regard it as apparent that 
this fungus, Pilacre, which has here¬ 
tofore been placed in different families, 
is the type as already noted of a second 
genus of the family Tulostomaceae.” 
It remained for Brefeld to give us 
the first clear and accurate account of 
the life history of this fungus. He 
grew it in culture and obtained a conid¬ 
ial condition which is a Hyphomycete 
similar in general structure and appear¬ 
ance to Rhinotrichum or Haplaria. 
He also gave detailed illustrations of its 
perfect condition with the typical trans¬ 
versely divided four-celled basidia and 
basidiospores. He regarded the fungus 
as closely related to the Auriculariales 
at first, but in his later summary or 
review of his work he mentions the 
similarity between the basidia of 
Pilacre and Tulostoma (7, p. 197) and 
also mentions the general resemblance 
of the fruiting bodies, both being 
angiocarpous; in his final arrangement 
of the fungi he places Pilacre interme¬ 
diate between the Auriculariaceae and 
Lycoperdaceae. His idea in regard to 
the relation between the conidial form 
and the perfect stage and its significance 
as to the development of the Basidio- 
mycetes from the Hyphomycetes is, 
of course, now generally regarded as 
untenable. 
Moller (26, p. 48-64), one of Brefeld's 
students, was the next to treat of this 
fungus and some of its relatives. He 
found in Brazil a fungus which he re- 
