Synopsis of Some Genera of the Large Pyrenomycetes | Page 3

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.
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.
[Illustration: #Fig. 837.#]
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. L��veill�� states that it has the spores borne on hyphae (acrogenous), but I do not place much value on L��veill��'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 the assertion that it is "stylospored," not even citing the uncertain testimony of L��veill��. Phylacia might be held distinct from Camillea on the ground of the powdery mass and the early disappearance of the perithecia and ascus walls. There is nothing new about that. It was done years ago by Fries who called the "genus" Leveilleana, which is a tip for some future name-juggler. All that is really known about its early structure is only from inference, and that inference is contrary to its having been "stylospored."
[Illustration: #Fig. 838.# #Fig. 839.# #Fig. 840.# Camillea Sagraena. Fig. 838, a cluster natural size; Fig. 839, broken specimen as often seen; Fig 840, two long stipe specimens.]
CAMILLEA SAGRAENA (Figs. 838-840).--Plants oblong about 3-4 mm., stipitate or substipitate at the base, growing densely caespitose, in patches, black, smooth, the apices usually obscurely mammillate. Stipes usually short, but sometimes 6-8 mm. long, and when growing in clusters, the bases consolidated by a carbonous stroma. Interior of the receptacle in two compartments (Fig. 841 ��6), the lower filled with soft tissue, black around the edges, but white_ in the center. The upper compartment filled with a mass of spores mixed with a few fragments of hyphae. Spores narrowly elliptical, 6 �� 12, straight, pale colored.
[Illustration: #Fig. 841.#]
In Cuba I made abundant collections of this species. It grew in patches from the thin bark, usually on the branches of a dead tree. I do not know the name of the tree, but I think it was only on one kind, one of the few softwood trees of Cuba. Camillea Sagraena is undoubtedly a common species in the American tropics. It has never been well described, and the white tissue of the interior lower half, which is a very rare occurrence in similar black, carbonous plants, has never been noted. A "new genus" might be based on this feature. It is quite fragile and the broken bases as shown (Fig. 839) are often all that remain of it when old. Camillea surinamensis as named by Berkeley from specimens from Surinam, type at Kew, is exactly the same species. Berkeley does not record it from Cuba, but from Nicaragua, and the specimen is supposed to be illustrated by Ellis in his plate 38. It may have been the plant, but if so, it was so inaccurately drawn that it would never be recognized. In addition to my abundant collections from Cuba, I have a scanty collection also from Cuba from E. B. Sterling.
[Illustration: #Fig. 844.# #Fig. 845.# Camillea Bomba. Fig. 844 on bark; Fig. 845 on hard wood.]
CAMIILLEA BOMBA (Figs. 844, 845).--Plants globose, sessile, 4-6 mm. in diameter, black, smooth, without any disc. Dehiscing by irregular fracture. Stroma hollow on the interior (Fig. 846 ��6) filled with a brown powder, composed