10 A MANUAL OF THE PENICILLIA 



He stressed the importance of description from cultures grown in the 

 laboratory under uniform conditions and emphasized the importance of 

 observations made on the growing colony and developing conidial struc- 

 tures. He emphasized further the group concept of classification which he 

 had developed over a period of years. Species which had been described 

 in adequate and tangible terms, or which were based upon living cultures 

 that could be used as reference material, were for the most part recognized. 

 In presenting these, the describer's species diagnosis was usually supple- 

 mented with Thom's o\vn observations, together with pertinent remarks 

 regarding the probable relationships of the form. Species which were 

 unrecognizable because of inadequate description were so labeled but 

 likewise included, and, wherever possible, notations were made as to their 

 possible relationships. Paecilomyces, Gliodadium, and Scopulariopsis were 

 separated from Penicillium but treated as related genera. Whereas this 

 work was primarily monographic in character, the biochemical and phys- 

 iological activities of the Penicillia as a whole were summarized and re- 

 ported for the first time. 



In the years since 1930, George Smith and G. E. Turfitt, of the London 

 School of Hj^giene and Tropical Medicine, and F. H. van Beyma, formerly 

 at the Centraalbureau in Baarn, Holland, have added substantially to 

 our knowledge of the Penicillia. All have contributed new and valid 

 species to the genus. The species of these authors have been fully and 

 carefully described, and with few exceptions, are accepted in this Manual. 



Armin von Szilvinyi, working in the Biological Station at Lunz under 

 the supervision of the "Institut fiir Biochemische Technologic an der 

 Technischen Hochschule in Wien," in 1941 described a series of Penicillia, 

 mostly obtained in the neighborhood of Lunz. Only a few of the cultures 

 used have found their way into the Centraalbureau or other well-recog- 

 nized collections, hence they have been unavailable for study. Von 

 Szilvinyi apparently believed that identification with a particular local 

 environment amply justified taxonomic recognition. A few species weie 

 described as new, but most of his isolates were accorded a varietal rank 

 (var. lunzinense) and assigned to species already described. Little basis 

 exists for most of these varieties, hence they must be referred to the species 

 named, or to other species when critical study of his data demands the 

 change. 



In describing species that he believed new, he left out important data 

 such as the origin and length of the conidiophore and failed to include 

 significant observations on the penicillus as it appears in petri dish cul- 

 ture under low magnifications of the compound microscope. The de- 

 ficiencies in his descriptions and illustrations, together with the inaccessi- 

 bility of his organisms in culture, make placement of most of these species 



