147 
seeing that I merely sent the thallus, in formalin or spirit, with no in- 
formation as to its source, but the following genera were suggested as 
those to which the fungus might belong :—P4hlebia, Michenera, * 
Tremella, Nematelia and Aegerita. 
Aegerita is an old genus, established by Persoon,t and evidently 
refers to some imperfect form. It agrees in some respects with the 
present form, and especially in the size of the “spores,” but the 
descriptions are too vague for decision. It would possibly be worth 
while to keep this genus of Fungi imperfectt in mind, however, for 
comparison of, say Aegertta virens.(Carm.) with Nematelia virescens 
(Corda) and Zremella atrovirens (Fr.) in culture, and in the light 
of what follows. 
On looking at the other four genera suggested, one is struck by the 
fact that they are all Basidiomycetes, Phlebia being the highest, 
Michenera, generally put near Corticium, coming next, while Tremella 
follows with Naemazelia close in its neighbourhood and _ probably 
merely an arrested form of it. Phlebia, I think, we must reject. I 
can find no trace of the pectinate ridges, or of the oidia which Brefeld 
has shown to be characteristic of the species he cultivated. At the 
same time there are some points of resemblance in the texture, and we 
still require information as to this genus. It would appear from 
Berkeley and Curtis’ description! that the present fungus is not 
Michenera (B & C)—Artocreas (B &C).|| Not only is the hymenium 
of the latter quite different, but the spores are twice the size, and there 
is no mention of the gelatinous consistency, wrinkled surface, etc. We 
may therefore conclude that this tropical genus is still unrepresented 
in Europe. 
Patouillard (Remarques sur 1’ organtsation de quelques cham- 
pignons exotigues). Bull de la Soc. Mycol. de Fr. T., vii., 1891, p. 42) 
examined Michenera artocreas (Berk and Curt) from Cuba and N. 
America, and decided that it should be removed from the Thele- 
phoreze, and even from the Basidiomycetes, and regards it as a 
particular type of Uredinew, comparing it to Uromyces, etc. He 
makes no mention of any veast-form, and bases his opinion entirely 
on the adult structure. In the absence of more convincing evidence 
we must reject this view. : 
_ Brefeld§ remarks that the genus Naematelia (Fr.) must be merged 
in T'remella since it was distinguished only by its rounded basidia, a 
character he claims for the true Tremella. He also remarks that 
Naematelia forms yeast-conidia, and that Fries had already made the 
observation that basidia had been mistaken for spores in this genus 
Fries’ words are ‘‘ sporophorzs pro sports sumtts.” . 
* I owe to the courtesy of Mr. Massee the su i 1 i 
. ggestion that the fungus might possibl 
be a Michenera rather than a Naematelia. a : 
t Persoon Disp. Fung. p. 40. 
$ Journ. Linn. Soc. Vol. x. 1869, p. 333. 
| ry) ” 99 29 XV. 1877, Pp: 83. 
§ Untersuchungen, &c. H, VII. 1888, p. 107. 
‘! Hymenomycetes Europ. 1874 p. 696. 
