722 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXXI, No. 8 
species the spores of which become disarticulated within the ascus; 
and (3) Ophiobolus Riess, established on 0. acuminatus (Sow.) Duby 
to include “ sphaeriaceous ” forms with nodose spores, presumably 
broader than those referable to Leptospora. An additional and new 
g enus, Leptosporopsis, was proposed for certain other forms like 
) phiobolus rostrupii Ferd. and Winge, 0. compressus Rehm and 
0. tanaceti (Fuck.) Sacc. which Hohnel found to possess “dothi- 
disceous” structure and hence to differ from Leptosphaeria de Not. 
only in having long narrow spores. Weese adopted Hohnehs revision 
of the group, suggesting, however, changing the definitions of the 
closely related “ sphaeriaceous ” genera Leptospora and Ophiobolus, 
so that the former is to include only forms with filamentous spores 
without nodose segments, while the latter is to include the species 
with nodose spores. For the setose forms, Weese retained two 
genera, Saccardo’s Ophiochaete, to include forms with erumpent 
fruiting bodies analogous to Ophiobolus, and Acanthophiobolus 
Berlese to include species with superficial perithecia and worm-shaped, 
multiguttulate, subhyaline ascospores. Since the latter combination 
of characteristics was found represented in Sphaeria chaetophorus 
Crouan, the retention of the combination Acanthophiobolus chaeto¬ 
phorus (Crouan) Berlese, abandoned by its author in favor of Sac¬ 
cardo’s combination, was indicated. 
Although the taxonomy promoted by Hohnel and Weese may redis¬ 
tribute an assortment of fungi into a number of presumably less 
heterogeneous groups, it is not certain that the rparrangement pro¬ 
posed is, after all, as free of arbitrary features as might be desired. 
The distinction drawn between the “sphaeriaceous” and “dothi- 
diaceous” types of discrete perithecia, on the basis of differences in 
internal development and structure, is one that has not hitherto beeu 
widely incorporated in mycological literature. In any case, the 
fungus under consideration would appear not to qualify for inclusion 
in Entodesmium as interpreted by Hohnel, as its spores show no 
tendency toward becoming disjointed. Nor could it well be referred 
to Leptospora, as the type for this genus, with its extremely slender 
spores, obviously does not represent a closely related form. While 
it must be admitted that the type of Ophiobolus, 0. acuminatus 
( = Leptosphaeriopsis acuminata [Sow.] Berlese), with its asci con¬ 
taining eight straight spores, each provided with two swollen seg¬ 
ments, does not itself show any close similarity, this species, from 
the information available, is at least not too obviously different from 
0. camptosporus with its ascus containing four helicoid ascospores 
each having one nodose intermediate cell to obviate the possibility 
of their being related more closely than by the arbitrary operations 
of analytical keys. 
Judging from Berlese’s figures of Ophiobolus compressus (. 1, v. 2, 
pi. 156) and Ceuthocarponbrunellae (Ell. and Ev.) Ben. ( = Leucospora 
brunellae Ell. and Ev.) (1, v. 2, pi. 170), both of which Hohnel would 
place in his proposed genus Leptosporopsis, these fungi exhibit a 
degree of s imil arity to the maize parasite about equal to that shown 
by the general run of forms referred to Ophiobolus, though not as 
great a similarity as is evidenced by 0. camptosporus. Indeed, 
neither Leptosporopsis Hohnel, nor Ophiomassaria Jaczewski, based 
on 0. selenospora (Otth.) Jacz., a fungus with 2 to 3 septate asco- 
spores in a mucus sheath (13, v. 11, p. 353); nor Acerbia as exempli- 
