The scanty knowledge we have of the real structure of this group
of plants leaves much to speculation. They are all evidently
closely related plants, and I think best classified under one
general head, or genus, Camillea. They are quite different from
the Hypoxylons of the temperate region, although we do not
question that the tropical species are included in Saccardo
mostly under Hypoxylon. When we come to compare what little we
know of the species we find several differences on which
"genera" could be based, and no doubt will be in time. In the
original sense, Camillea might be restricted to the two
cylindrical species, C. Leprieurii and C. Bacillum.
Then we have the short, cylindrical or globose forms with
persistent or semi-persistent perithecia, Camillea Labellum, C.
Cyclops and C. turbinata with the intermediate species C.
mucronata. The above will form one, or two, genera, according to
taste.
In the following plants we find no perithecia in the ripe
specimens, hence of course they will in time be considered a
genus. We believe there are two distinct differences between the
few species we know, corresponding with the old ideas of Bovista
and Lycoperdon in the puff balls. Camillea Sagraena and C.
poculiformis, with two divisions of the gleba, a fertile and a
sterile portion, and Camillea Bomba and C. globosa (?) with
homogenous gleba. The species Camillea Sagraena differs from the
other in having the fertile portion composed largely of spores
(scanty in others) and in having part of the sterile portion of
uncolored hyphae. Of course, it will form a "genus." Thus the
genus Camillea can be easily divided into five "genera" and we
make the suggestion for the benefit of those engaged in breaking
up the old genera, and proposing new names to which to add their
own. Who will rise to the occasion?
* * * * *