164 ON THE SPEEMATIA OF THE ASC0MYCETE3. 



importfint. It allows ns, in fact, to adopt a considerable simplifi- 

 cation of the study of the great group of Ascomycetes ; it unites 

 into one two reproductive forms, rather alike in appearance, but 

 which, physiolog^'cally, would not be compared : they may be so 

 now. These are two homologous forms, and a crowd of interme- 

 diary ones uniting them. That which distinguishes the true sper- 

 niatia, is their smallness : they appear to have been caused by a 

 reserve of nourishment, which the whole spore bears in general 

 with it in order to provide for its first development in the humid 

 air. They ought to fall upon an appropriate substratum, without 

 which they would not develop. The conidia, on the contrary, easily 

 germinate; but what iinites them to the preceding, is their acro- 

 genous production, their slight and simple envelope, the immense 

 profusion with which they are produced, their role of dissemination, 

 so evident among the mucedinous forms of the AscMmjcetes, a dis- 

 semination which, as to the conidia, may be accomplished by the 

 aid of the wind, as are the true spermatia by water and birds. 



This simplification of the number of reproductive organs gives a 

 great unity to the polymorphism of the Ascomycetes ; it will be 

 lienceforth possible to compare the asexuous forms with them. 

 Useless for classification and the allying of genera and S[)ecies 

 (which was united hitherto, in general, uniquely by the opening or 

 the disposition of the ascophorous conceptacles), the conidia or 

 spermatia will give some valuable indications in certain cases ; the 

 morphological studies will furnish many data for the Mucedines 

 which will cause them to be ranged among the Ascomycetes, and 

 to quit their heterogenous group, which still contains too great a 

 number of representatives. It was singular, in the hypothesis of 

 a fecundative role, to see the spermatia wanting in many of the 

 genera, and notably among the more numerous species, Hyp^crea, 

 Xylai'ia, Tomihia., etc. ; the spermatia and the conidia are morpho- 

 logically identical, these are two homologous forms having the same 

 role, and scarcely differing from one another : these two terms 

 ought to be held as synonyms. 



With this explanation, the word spermatia can, and ought, to 

 subsist in this part of the science which M. Tulasne has enriched 

 with such remarkable discoveries. 



[We think that had M. Cornu at once discarded the term 

 " spermatia," when convinced that they had no fecundative 

 function, his communication would have been more lucid. We 

 cannot agree with him that the term should be retained with 

 a new interpretation, which is only likely to create confusion. If 

 spermatia do not possess the function usually attributed to sper- 

 matia it is better not to call them by that name. — Ed, Greviilea.'\ 



