M. C. COOKE OX PUKT SPORES. 171 



Hence what Mr. Berkeley had barely suspected in 1847, was in 

 1854 shown to be true. 



In his " introduction to Cryptogamic Botany," Mr. Berkeley alludes 

 to his experiments on bunt, and the suspicions he entertained, for 

 writing of the bunt spores, he says f>. 32 Ij : — '' The spores, 

 however, are not immediate means of propagation ; they are, in 

 fact, only a sort of prothallus, from which the mycelium grows, 

 producing at the tips, or on lateral branchlets, bodies of various 

 forms, which are themselves capable of germination, and imme- 

 diately reproduce the species. These bodies were, I believe, first 

 observed by myself in Tilletia caries, though with nothing more 

 than a suspicion of their real character. I found that whenever 

 the spores of Bunt germinated, linear or fusiform bodies were 

 generated, which ultimately became joined after the fashion of 

 Zijgnema ; and Mr. Broome and Mr. Thwaites on repeating the ex- 

 periment at my request obtained the same result. In my uncertainty 

 as to their real nature, they were described and figured as Fusis- 

 porium inosculans in the transactions of the Horticultural Society 

 of London, and in the Encyclopajdia of Agriculture, under the 

 word " Bunt." 



Passing from the germination and propagation of Bunt to its 

 supposed connection with cholera, we may remember that many 

 years ago, when the examination of cholera evacuations were said 

 to indicate a fungoid origin, and much was written and said about 

 the influence of Fungi spores in producing cholera ; if I remember 

 "lightly, some of these spores were submitted to Mr. Busk, and he 

 pronounced them Bunt spores, which, at that time more commonly 

 than now, were often found in flour and bread, and by the natural 

 course of eating found their way into the human intestines. 



Last year Professor Hallier, in his " cholera contagium," again 

 raised the cry that cholera was caused by a fungus, but in this 

 instance one which he assumed to be parasitic on rice in India, 

 identical with one found in Europe on the leaves and sheaths of 

 rye, and known as Urocystis occulta. Unfortunately for himself 

 and his theory, the learned Professor assumed too much. It could 

 not be proved that the Urocystis attacked the grain of any food 

 plant at all, or that it had been detected on the leaves of the rice 

 plant. A long article favouring Dr. Hallier's views appeared in 

 the " Standard," the fallacies of which I attacked a few days after 

 in the columns of " Country Life." With almost as great facility 



