aragua, 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 x6) filled with a
brown powder, composed of spores mixed with abundant hyphae remnants of
the perithecia and asci. Spores 6-7 x 10-12, elliptical, pale colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 846.#]

This seems to be a frequent species in tropical America. I collected it
in Cuba and have specimens from Miss Barrett, Jamaica, and L. J. K.
Brace, Bahamas. The latter specimens grew erumpent from thin bark, and
the broken bark forms a kind of cup at the base of the stroma. A thin,
black mycelial stroma underlies the bark. Those I collected in Cuba were
somewhat larger, and more irregular. Some grew in same manner, erumpent
from thin bark and the broken bark forms a kind of cup at the base of
the stroma, others on the naked, hard wood and grew more compact. In the
latter case the black stroma at the base was thicker and more in
evidence. There is no question but that Camillea Bomba is cogeneric with
Camillea Sagraena, but the gleba of the latter consists almost entirely
of spores, while in the former there is considerably more hyphae
remnants than spores.

CAMILLEA GLOBOSA (Fig. 847).--Plants densely caespitose, sessile,
globose, black, smooth. 7-8 mm. in diameter. Opening by irregular
fracture. Stroma hollow, filled with a brown mass of spores and hyphae
remnants. Spores elliptical.

Leveille named this from a specimen from Tolima, Columbia, South
America. The type Fig. 847 is all than is known to me. Leveille spins a
long story about it having spores borne on filaments, merely a wrong
deduction, I think, from his having found filaments (of the perithecia
walls?) mixed with the spores. Saccardo, who evidently did not take much
stock in Leveille's story, omitted the species, suggesting that it was a
form of Camillea turbinata. Saccardo's conclusions were almost as bad as
Leveille's.

We have not examined any specimens of Camillea glob