he matrix. They are produced at intervals of
about 1/2 cm, and apparently never two contiguous. Apex a circular,
rounded depression, with a slightly elevated disc. Perithecia arranged
in a central bundle, with permanent, carbonous walls (Fig. 835 x6).
Spores oblong, 8 x 12, pale colored.

[Illustration: #Fig. 834.# Camillea Cyclops.]

[Illustration: #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.

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.

[Illustration: #Fig. 837.#]

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. Leveille states that it has the spores borne
on hyphae (acrogenous), but I do not place much value on Leveille'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 bett