512 PEtOH : 



Its diameter was only 2-3 ^, though de Soynes found some 

 branches up to 6 jx diameter, which he regards as arrested 

 sporophores. (This diameter is very much smaller than that 

 observed in Ceylon. ) 



The sporophores were erect and fusiform, and stouter than 

 the mycehum. They appeared first as small spherical 

 prominences which were cut off by a septum a little above 

 the point of origin. Thence they increased suddenly in 

 diameter to 8 or 10 \j., after which they diminished gradually 

 to a diameter of about 5 |i.. Their total length was 100-150 \^, 

 and their colour, especially towards the base, was reddish- 

 brown or fuliginous. They possessed two to four septa near 

 the base. Branched sporophores were not rare. 



The conidia were one-celled, hyahne, cyhndric, truncate or 

 rounded at the extremities, 4-5 \^. in diameter, and 5-8 [x 

 in length. Sometimes they separated from one another, 

 sometimes several remained united in a chain, but those 

 formed last issued freely from the interior of the sporophore. 

 de Seynes understood that the spores were formed in succession 

 within the sporophore, but he appears to have beheved that 

 those first formed were united to the wall of the spore cell, 

 and broke away with part of the latter, while those formed 

 later were formed- free in the cell , and therefore after their 

 expulsion part of the wall of the latter remained as an empty 

 tube. This, and other examples, serve as a basis for his 

 paper on acrogenous conidia (2). 



In addition to the conidia described above, the same 

 mycelium bore other conidia, which de Seynes named 

 Macroconidia. They occurred singly, or in chains of two or 

 thi'ee, on branches less specialized than the sporophores 

 previously described. These conidia were oval, rarely 

 spherical, 10-22 X 7-10 [l, ohvaceous brown, black in mass. 

 They are said to be segmented off from the parent cell, but 

 endogenous, and to be set free by the destruction of the upper 

 part of the cell wall of the parent cell. It is extremely doubtful 

 from this description whether de Seynes reaUy observed the 

 perfect formation of what are now known as Macroconidia. 



He notes that among the conidia developed from the special 

 sporopliores {i.e., those now known as microconidia) one often 



