ace shows above, regularly disposed minute
papillae, the apices of individual sporangia.

"Far from infrequent, on decorticate pine, of _Lycogala atrum_ a
constant companion"!

It goes of course without saying, that for the authors quoted, _Lycogala
atrum_ is _Amaurochaete atra_ Rost. _A. fuliginosa_ (Sow.) of more
recent students, described and perfectly figured in the volume cited.

It is surprising that they did not enter the present species also as a
lycogala. But the stemonitis relationship this time impressed them
rather than the aethalial; besides they were misled by the _S.
fasciculata_ of Gmelin and Persoon, a composite which the genius of
Fries hardly availed to disentangle twenty-five years later.

The last named author, as we see, wrote first _Lachnobolus_, then
_Reticularia_. He calls the interwoven capillitium--_lachne_, wool, a
"_pilam tactu eximie elasticam_," etc. He read the description in the
_Conspectus_, but carried away the stemonitis suggestion dominant there,
as we have seen, put _S. tubulina_ A. & S. as an undeveloped phase of
_S. fusca_, which, of course, it is not. It needed not the authority of
Rostafinski, _Mon._, p. 197, to assure us this. The earlier authors
describe the species in course of development to complete maturity, and
clinch the story by declaring the form a constant companion of the
commonly recognized amaurochete, so fixing the relationship for us by
habitat also.

These men made a mistake, of course, in placing their species among the
stemonites at all. They did much better however than Fries who called it
a reticularia. It was also a mistake to cite _S. fasciculata_,--the
small fasciculate tufts of _S. fusca_ and _S. axifera_ offering by the
aggregate habit only faint resemblance,--a possible refuge for those who
would prefer another disposition of their species distinct (_aliena_)
though it is.

Since Fries' day the species has been overlooked although the genus has
received more than once attention. Zukal _Hedwigia_, XXXV., p. 335,
describes _A. speciosa_ as a new species. This Saccardo writes down,
Syll. Fung., VII., p. 399, _S. tubulina_ A. & S., admitting, however, at
the same time, that as fine an authority as Raciborsky refuses to call
Zukal's species either a stemonite or an amaurochete, thinks it
deserving generic appellation of its own.

However, _A. speciosa_ Zuk. need not here concern us. Neither in his
description nor figures does Zukal at all approach t