Recently Dr. John H. Haines, New York State Museum, called to my attention a collection taken by S. J. Hughes on 8. V. 1963 of Arachnopeziza rhopalostylidis Dennis (1961). Like the type specimen, it was collected on dead leaves of Rhopalostylis sapida, a palm, and the specimen (DAOM 156811) was obtained near the type locality, at Waiatarua, Waitakere Range, Auckland Province, New Zealand. It is unquestionably the species described by Dennis, and has densely gregarious apothecia totally devoid of a subiculum, with filiform ascospores that remain non-septate for a long time (but, as shown to me by Dr. Haines, eventually develop 1-3 septa). Dennis drew smooth hairs, but they are distinctly finely granulate; some are thick-walled apically, others not; some are tipped by a resinous material. The thick-walled asci have a tapering, J+ pore-wall (Dennis wrote, "apice ultimo obsolete jodo coerulescente"). Significantly, the hyphae of the ascocarp are all long-celled and glassywalled, bound in a gel (except for the loose hairs). This is no Arachnopeziza, and the species must even fall outside of the Hyaloscyphoideae. It fits rather well within the concept of the Trichoscyphelloideae (Korf, 1973), and since it differs only in minor respects from species I now.range in Lachnellula Karst. emend. Dennis (inclusive of Trichoscyphella Nannf.) I propose its transfer:

LACHNELLULA RHOPALOSTYLIDIS (Dennis) Korf, comb. nov.

Basionym: Arachnopeziza rhopalostylidis Dennis, Kew Bull. 15: 302. 1961.

Assignment of Dennis's species to Lachnellula is in keeping with the current, broad concept of the genus, no longer restricted to spherical-spored species such as L. chrysophthalma ("Pers.") Karst. [= L. suecica (Fuckel) Nannf. in Lund. & Nannf.], but with the oval-spored and filiform-spored species previously treated as members of Trichoscyphella. This emendation by Dennis (1962) has been followed by such workers as Dharne (1965) and Raltviir (1970). In its earlier, more restricted sense, the species assigned to the genus were normally on coniferous hosts, but in its broader delimitation, hosts of many families occur. Whether such anomalous species as L. theiodea (Cke. & Ell.) Sacc. (cfr. Korf, 1962) can still be accommodated in the genus is open to serious doubt (Dennis, Dharne, and Raltviir, loc. cit., all fail to mention this species). But quite clearly an interface exists betweeen the Trichoscyphelloideae (with its one genus, Lachnellula) and species that have been placed in the Phialeoideae, particularly in such genera as Cyathicula (inclusive of "Phialea," cfr Dumont & Korf, 1977) and Belonioscypha, on the one hand, and species still ranged in Dasyscyphus (in its broad sense) on the other. Whether L. rhopalostylidis needs to segregated into some as yet undescribed genus will have to wait for further data. Information on tropical members of the Hyaloscyphaceae currently being undertaken by Dr. Haines should throw light on affinities in this group. But clearly the species cannot be accommodated in Arachnopeziza, and its transfer out of the genus now at least calls attention to its probable relatives.