HOTSON. — CULTURE STITDTES OF FUNGI. 297 



DiMulrypliiuin just iiK'nti()iio(l; l)iit here again pmv cultures do not 

 appear to have been used. As far as the writer is aware, moreover, 

 this common hyphomycete has never been seen to be thus associated 

 by any other observer. 



Papulospora (StcMnphyHum) Magnusianum fSarc), (Micheha, 

 I, \'o2) a form t'ollfctctl by Magnus in the Tyrol, distributed in Vester- 

 gren, Micr. Sel., No. 1150, and also figured by Saccardo in Fungi 

 Italici, No. 934, should be mentioned in the present connection, since 

 it is a typical bulbil and by no means a compound spore like that of 

 species of Stemphylium. 



Clathrospharrn spirifera Zalewski ('88), is a form which the author, 

 although his observations are concealed in Polish text, appears to 

 regard as bulbiferous, or as producing bodies comparable to bulbils, 

 which are also associated with a species of Helicoon. 



The WTiter has himself observed various other more or less ill de- 

 fined types of bulbils, which have not been above enumerated, since 

 they do not appear to be sufficiently well marked to warrant a definite 

 name. "No. 170" for example (Figures 24-34, Plate 5), was found 

 in California on straw from Claremont, and on old paper from Duarte. 

 The fungus is characterized by an abundant white mycelium, the 

 hyphae of which produce bulbil-like bodies consisting of a few cells 

 each, as indicated in the figures. Their characters and de\elopment, 

 however, are not constant and their exact nature is somewhat doubt- 

 ful. 



COMPOUND SPORES AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE 

 STRUCTURES WHICH RESEMBLE BULBILS. 



Reference has already been made to the close reseml)lance which 

 exists between the so called "spore-balls" of some of the Ustilaginales, 

 and the structures under consideration; in fact it would be quite 

 impossible to differentiate the spore-balls of Urocystis or Tul)crcinia 

 from bulbils, as far as concerns their gross structure and method of 

 development which may be exactly similar. They are, however, 

 clearly distinguished in other ways; since in bulbils, spore formation is 

 never preceded by any nuclear fusion, so far as is known ; and further- 

 more the germination of })ulbils in no way resembles that of the smuts; 

 and there is never any indication of the formation of anything corre- 

 sponding to a promycelium. 



Attention has also been called to the fact that the compound spores 



