The apothecia are gregarious, nestled amongst conspicuous, white subicular hyphae. They appear sessile but, when examined in longitudinal section, are seen to possess a very short, central stipe by which they are at first loosely attached to the substrate, as figured by Korf (1978). However, apothecia frequently become detached and suspended free from the substrate amongst the subicular hyphae.

The appearance of this species is similar to that of Eriopezia caesia, having dark apothecia which contrast markedly with a white subiculum, though in A. samuelsii the subiculum is far less dense. The excipular structure is also comparable in these species, comprising brown cells towards the base which become narrower upwards and form parallel hyphae towards the margin. Apothecia of E. caesia have a well-developed stipe and a thick, well-developed excipular tissue which gives rise at the surface to hyaline, much-branched subicular hyphae. These hyphae, unlike those In the figure published by Korf (1978), arise over the entire surface of the receptacle, even to the extreme margin. Thus, the apothecia of Eriopezia are not so much seated on a subiculum as immersed in it, as though in a loosely constructed stroma. The subicular hyphae have finely granulate walls, and this granulation is not dissolved in Melzer's reagent, though is partially so after prolonged immersion in Cotton blue in lactophenol. In contrast, apothecia of A. samuelsii have a very short stipe and a reduced excipular tissue which gives rise to branched subicular hyphae only towards the base of the receptacle, these hyphae being encrusted with small particles which are readily soluble in Melzer's reagent. Only simple, hyaline hairs are present over the upper part of the receptacle, which stands free of the subiculum.

Further significant differences between these species are apparent. The paraphyses of E. caesia are frequently forked or branched whereas those of A. samuelsii are simple, coherent and sheathed with gel. The asci of the former are minute, usually less than 35 µm long, and contain small, unicellular ascospores whereas those of A. samuelsii are frequently greater than 100 µm in length and contain ascospores which are large, septate and surrounded by a 0.5 mm thick gelatinous sheath. These differences make me unwilling to follow Korf in referring the two species to the same genus, and, as E. caesia is the type species of Eriopezia, I propose here a new genus to accommodate E. samuelsii.

Korf (1978) distinguished two tribes, Polydesmieae and Arachnopezizeae, in subfamily Arachnopezizoideae, based on the position of the apothecia in relation to the substrate and subiculum. Apothecia of species of Polydesmieae are attached to the substrate, whereas those of Arachnopezizeae arise directly from subicular hyphae. If this division is maintained, Austropezia must fall, with Eriopezia, in the Polydesmieae. However, the tenuous attachment to the substrate exhibited by apothecia of A. samuelsii may render such a division difficult to uphold, and there is no other indication that the genus is more closely related to Polydesmia than to Arachnopeziza. Apothecia of Arachnopeziza have a comparable, though hyaline, ectal excipulum, but develop directly from the subicular hyphae and are never attached to the substrate. They differ further from those of Austropezia in having well-developed hairs. The inter-relationships of these genera are difficult to interpret and, as discussed in the introduction to the Hyaloscyphaceae, the taxonomy of the genera currently assigned to subfamily Arachnopezizoideae is not yet entirely satisfactory.