BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION. 245, 
species be referred to any Schweinitzian form. It seems to us, how- 
ever, doubtful whether Uromyces Caricis, Peck, of Von Thiimen’s 
“Mycotheca,” No. 746, is distinct from the form on Lrizopyrum. If 
it is, the difference must consist in the slight roughness on the wall of 
the spore, which is not, however, mentioned by Peck as a specific mark, 
in the 24th Report of “ New York State Botanist.” 
A Uromyces abundant at Wood’s Hole on Statice Limonium is 
identical with Uromyces Limonii (Dub.). A&cidia, Uredo, and Teleuto- 
spores were noticed. The xcidium was described as a new form in 
the 23d Rep. of the “ New York State Botanist,” but seems to be the 
same as cidiwm Statices, Desm., of Europe. The same fungus is 
represented in the Curtis Herbarium by a specimen marked Uromyces 
Statices, B. & C., from Mare Isd. Cal. U.S. Expl. Expd. There is also 
a Uromyces common on different species of Huphorbia throughout the 
Eastern United States, which has recéived several names. It was 
apparently first seen by Schweinitz, and referred by him in “ Fung. 
Car. Sup.” No. 474, to “ Uredo scutellata” and afterwards in “ Syn. 
Fung. Am. Bor.” No. 2846, to Ceoma punctuosum, Lk. It was after- 
wards described in the “ Fungi Cubenses” as 7richobasis Huphorbicola, 
B. & C., No. 598 (Wright 720) and later still in the 25th Rep. of the 
“ Botanist of New York State” as Uromyces Huphorbie, C. & P. An 
examination of a Schweinitzian specimen shows that the fungus is the 
same as that common from New England to Texas on different Huphor- 
bie, but it is not as Schweinitz supposed the Ceoma punctuosum of 
Link. Neither is it, as Curtis states in his list, a form of U. apiculosa. 
Curtis at one time apparently considered the fungus to be the Zeidium 
Euphorbia hypericefolie of Schweinitz, which could not have been the 
case if Schweinitz’s description in “ Syn. Fung. Am. Bor.” No. 2890 
is correct. We have not, however, seen a specimen of the last named 
species. The first definite description of the fungus is that given by 
Berkeley in “Journ. Linn. Soc.” Vol. X. p. 357. The specimen in 
Herb. Curtis, No. 720, contains both Uredo and Teleutospores, and 
the species is certainly the same as that afterwards described as U. 
Euphorbia, C. & P. Uromyces myristica, B. & C., on Euphorbia 
bicolor, Texas, we cannot on careful examination consider distinct. 
The American fungus needs to be carefully compared with Uromyces 
scutellatus, Lev. What is, at present, generally known in Germany 
as U. scutellatus, Lev., differs from the American form in having 
