Synopsis of Some Genera of the Large Pyrenomycetes | Page 5

into five "genera" and we make the suggestion for the benefit of those engaged in breaking up the old genera, and proposing new names to which to add their own. Who will rise to the occasion?
* * * * *

THE GENUS THAMNOMYCES.
This is included in Saccardo as part of Xylaria, but we feel is well entitled to generic rank. It was proposed by Ehrenberg in 1820 for a curious species collected in Brazil. The genus differs from Xylaria in having the fruiting bodies on the ends of branches, which in one species are dichotomous, or in the other two species sessile or subsessile and borne on a slender rhachis. There are conflicting accounts of the structure of these bodies. The original, by Ehrenberg, represents them as hollow bodies, with the perithecia imbedded in the walls. That also is as shown by Cooke and is the usual idea. Moeller, on the contrary, represents each body as a perithecium, and our examination confirms Moeller's view. If Moeller's account is true, as it seems to be, it is a strong reason why Thamnomyces should not be classed with Xylaria.
The usual Xylaria has a white, sterile, central portion known as the stroma, bearing a carbonous crust. The perithecia are generally imbedded in the outer portion of the stroma, the mouths opening through the carbonous crust. The walls of the perithecia are carbonous, and confluent with the crust. The genus Thamnomyces has a slender stem, entirely carbonous. This seems to have been the main difference between it and Xylaria in the old classification, but the character is fallacious.
There are Species of Xylaria that have no white stroma. The stem is slender and carbonous and bears the carbonous fruit bodies, superficial, but sessile and globose. Fries proposed for these species, the generic name Rhizomorpha, which Saccardo united with Thamnomyces as a section of Xylaria. In my view it is an entirely different idea from Thamnomyces and should form a section in itself in the genus Xylaria. There are Several species like Xylaria scopiformis that intimately connect Rhizomorpha with Xylaria.
We believe the genus Thamnomyces, in the true sense, embraces only three species as follows:
[Illustration: #Fig. 850.#]
THAMNOMYCES CHAMISSONIS (Fig. 850).--Stem Carbonous, black, smooth, repeatedly dichotomously branched, the ultimate branches bearing ovate, acute fruiting bodies. Structure of these bodies shown by Moeller is entirely carbonous, hollow, each forming a single, carbonous perithecium. Spores shown by different authors as of different shapes and sizes. In our specimens they are 9 �� 20-28 mic., dark, and arctuate. They closely resemble the ordinary Xylaria spore.
This was originally named from Brazil by Ehrenberg, who gave a good illustration of it. It has therefore escaped all synonyms, excepting by Cooke, who discovered it was a new species and called it Thamnomyces dendroidea. Hennings also discovered it from Africa, first as a new variety, then as a new species, Thamnomyces camerunensis, but of course everything that came to Hennings must be "new" something. It grows on rotten, hard wood, and does not seem frequent in our American tropics. In Africa, however, I judge it is more abundant as numbers of African collections are in the museum at Berlin. We have only received it once, at nice specimen (Fig. 850) from R. H. Bunting, Gold Coast, Africa.
[Illustration: #Fig. 851.#]
THAMNOMYCES CHORDALIS (Fig. 851).--Stem long, slender, several proceeding from a common base, entirely carbonous, black, smooth. Fruiting bodies (or perithecia?) sessile along the stem, ovate, with slender apices, black. Spores oblong, arctuate, dark.
This, I believe, is only known from tropical America, but is apparently not rare as it is recorded a number of times, mostly from Brazil. Fries named it from French Guiana in 1830 and gave a characteristic description of it. A co-type with the fruit mostly gone is at Kew. Later Montagne got it also from French Guiana and gave a good figure and description under the name Thamnomyces rostratus. He thought it was different from Fries' species on account of the spores not being globose, but the "globose" spores of the original description is doubtless an error. The plants are surely the same. As Montagne's figure is characteristic, the plant when subsequently found has usually been recorded under his name. We present in our figure both Montagne's and Fries' type.
[Illustration: #Fig. 852.#]
THAMNOMYCES FUCIFORMIS (Fig. 852).--In general appearance, this is the same as Thamnomyces chordalis, but a much larger plant. The fruit bodies (perithecia?) are more slender and are short, stalked. Our figure, which is about half the spike, will show exactly the difference between the two species. The plant was named by Berkeley from specimens collected in Brazil by Spruce, and to this day is only known from this old collection. The name is from the habits, "those of a fucus rather than a fungus," a far-fetched comparison, for my impression is there are no