apex of the plant. We can see but faint indication of them in our photograph.

CAMILLEA LABELLUM (Fig. 829).—Plant short, cylindrical, about a cm. tall and thick, with a depressed disc. Perithecia contiguous, forming at layer beneath the disc. Spores (M.) fusiform, dark, 30 mic., long.

I believe the plant is only known from the original collection in Montagne's herbarium, from Leprieur, French Guiana. It does not follow, however, that it is such a rare plant, but only that the plants of the region have been scantily collected. Our figure is a photograph of the types.

Fig. 829.

CAMILLEA TURBINATA (Figs. 830-833).—Plants obconic or turbinate, about a cm. tall and broad, growing in a dense cluster from a common, mycelial carbonous base. The summit is truncate, and marked with a raised central disc, which is thin and in old plants breaks irregularly. A section of a young plant (Figs. 831 ×6) shows the lower part composed of rather soft, carbonous tissue, the upper filled with a light brown powder, composed of spores mixed with hyphae tissue. In old plants the tops break in, the powder is dissipated, and there remains (Fig. 833) a bundle of carbonous tubes, the walls of the perithecia. Finally, these break up and disappear, leaving the upper part of the plant hollow. The spores are elliptical, 6-7 × 16-18 mic., smooth, light colored. The asci which disappear at at very early stage, are shown by Moeller as oval, each containing 8 spores.

This is at common plant in our American tropics, and was named by Berkeley, as Hypoxylon turbinatum, but in a later paper he referred it to Camillea turbinata. It is compiled in Saccardo as Hypoxylon. I doubt not but that it was named Sphaeria caelata by Fries many years "prior." Spegazzini found it abundantly, and noting that it was not a good Hypoxylon, puzzled over it in two or three papers and finally also concluded that it was at Camillea. Moeller also "discovered" it, and although the common plant was well known in other centers, the rumors had not reached Berlin, hence he "discovered" it was a new genus, which he dedicated to his friend, Dr. Hennings and called it Henningsinia durissima. Fortunately, he gave a good figure by which his "discovery" could be interpreted.

We have beautiful specimens from Dr. J. Dutra, Brazil, from which our figure was made, also we have specimens from Rev. Rick.

Fig. 830. Camillea turbinata. (Side view, natural size.)	Fig. 831. Section with spore mass (X 6).
Fig. 832. Same, top view.	Fig. 833. Section after dispersion of spores.

CAMILLEA CYCLOPS.—Plants short, cylindrical, or semi-globose, black, about 4 mm. in diameter, erumpent from a common mycelial origin, and distributed regularly over the matrix. They are produced at intervals of about ½ cm, and apparently never two contiguous. Apex a circular, rounded depression, with a slightly elevated disc. Perithecia arranged in a central bundle, with permanent, carbonous walls (Fig. 835 ×6). Spores oblong, 8 × 12, pale colored.

Fig. 834. Camillea Cyclops.

Fig. 835.

While this as probably not a rare plant in the American tropics, it appears to have been only known from the Leprieur collections sent to Montagne. We have recently gotten it from Rev. Torrend, Brazil, and the receipt of the specimens inspired this pamphlet. I notice on some of these specimens (not all) little protruding points that are similar to those that Montagne shows, near the apex of Camillea mucronata. These appear like abortive surface perithecia, but I do not find any clue to their nature, and I do not know what they are. Cyclops was the name of a giant in mythology that had but one eye in the middle of his forehead. Thus species has but one "eye," but it is hardly a giant.

Fig. 837.

In the same paper in which Montagne lists Camillea Cyclops, he names and figures Hypoxylon macromphalum. I can not tell the photograph (Fig. 837) I made of the type from the photograph of Camillea Cyclops. From Montagne's sectional figure, the perithecia are arranged in the same manner, and the two plants are surely cogeneric and, I believe, identical. A close reading of Montagne's description discloses but one point of difference. He records that in Hypoxylon macromphalum the ostioles are prominent, and in a close examination of my photograph, I do note minute points on the disc that are absent from Camillea cyclops. Still I believe they are the same plant.

SECTION 2. PHYLACIA.

This might be made a genus, corresponding to Hypoxylon as to stroma, but having the stroma hollow and filled with a pulverulent mass. In reality, I think it is a better Camillea, the perithecia arranged the same way, not permanent, but broken up at an early stage. Of course, it is only an inference. Léveillé states that it has the spores borne on hyphae (acrogenous), but I do not place much value on Léveillé's statements. Patouillard, after admitting that he saw nothing but this powdery mass, adds "it is probable that the spores were contained in logettes with fugacious walls, of which only the marks on the inner side of the cavity remain." It would have been better if he had stopped there, but he goes on to propose afterwards that Hypoxylon Bomba should be held distinct from Camillea under the name Phylacia, because it presents a form "stylospored" and a form "ascospored." He does not give the reason for