:!>
4-? shall not venture to make any observations upon it, until I have
had an opportunity of examining a greater number of species.
F r i e s , in the introduction to his Systevia (v. 1. p. xlvii.), has
placed Rhizomorpha in the Second Order of his Second Class,
which includes plants of the followiug description : “ Fibræ ge-
nuinæ septatæ. Receptaculum nullum.—In organismis pu-
trescentibus.” According to this character, our present species
ought not to be a Rhizomorpha. P e r s o o n , also, has amnged
this genus among the Trichomyci of his last work, and positively
denies that the tubercles occasionally observed on the
branches are fructification. On the other hand, D e C a n d
o l l e aifirms them to be the fructification, and moreover to
be dehiscent at the apex. He therefore places it in his Order
H y p o x y l a , on account of its affinity with several Xylarioe.
A German author, also, M. F s c h w e i l e r , who has written a
laborious essay on tbe fructification of the genus, is decidedly
in opposition to the two first-mentioned writers, and describes
tubercular fructification of several species, and gives a figure of
that of Rhizoimrpha subterránea, with dissections ; from
which it appears that the tubercle or perithecium is formed by
the outer coat of the substance of the branch.
In the species under consideration, the fructification does
not agree with the above, or any other description I have met
with. The perithecia, as I have called them, seem to be supported
on very short proper footstalks, and might almost pass
for the commencement of young branches, were it not for their
regularity and somewhat carnose appearance. Had Rhizo-
morpha been well defined, and the tubercular fructification well
known and established as such, the plant here figured should
have formed a new genus. A t present, true science would not
be forwarded by such a measure.
Fig. 1. R h . divergens, nat. size. Fig. 2. A portion o f a hranch, with perithecia
magnified. Fig. 3. Perithecia dissected.