[W
/IJ'
f
scribed it, though he imagined T o d e had iigured it under the
name of penetrans. Whatever that plant may prove which
T o d e called Sphæria penetrans, it assuredly cannot be Sphoe-
ria Patella of other authors. What are his own words ? “ Minimis
sni generis merito associatur, cum puncto paulo major ap-
pareat. Capsulas nigræ, læves, nitidæ, glohosæ, vertice acumi-
nato, pondéré mucilaginis, in gnttulæ formam expressæ et pos-
tea in globrdum, omnis nitoris expertem, coagulatæ, deprimun-
tnr adeo, ut tandem in Patellæ formam excaventur ; glohulis
ipsis tnm decidentibus.” This globulus, or “ globus spermati-
cus,” does not belong to our plant, which also seems to be much
larger than that figured by T o d e .
Another proof how much this plant has been misunderstood,
is, that D e C a n d o l l e , in his Synopsis Fl. Gall, has
described Sphæria Herbarum under the name of Sph. Patella,
and corrected himself in the Supplement to the Flore Française.
And an additional proof is, that Mr P u r t o n has cited
Sph. Patella as a synonym to Sphæria nigra of S o i v e r b y ,
which is certainly not the plant, and probably a variety of
Sphæria Herbarum. Mr P u r t o n , however, finds his specimens
agree with those of M o u g e o t and N e s t l e r ,—a circumstance
which proves his plant to he correct, though not his
reference to S o w e r b y .
The peculiar characters of this plant are quite sufficient to
warrant its formation into a new genus.
Fig. 1. Heterosphceria Patella, nat. size. Fig. 2. Plants magnified. Fig. 3.
Plants removed. Fig. 4. A section. Fig. 5. A sectional thin slice. Fig. 6.
Sporuliferous tubes— All magnified except Fig. 1.
ir