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 the assertion that it is "stylospored," not even citing the uncertain testimony of Léveillé. 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."
 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 stipespecimens. | ||
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.