Observations on Saprolegniece. 141 



a length of 2 cm., and produced both sporangia and oogonia 

 on the same plant. The sporangia were always terminal, pro- 

 duced a little in advance of the oogonia, and gave off a much 

 greater number of zoospores than the form before noted. The 

 oogonia were lateral and borne upon much more slender ped- 

 icels than in A. racemosa, var. The granules never united to 

 form globular particles, and in segregation remained in proxi- 

 mity to the wall of the oogonium, leaving a light center until 

 assuming spherical forms. The antheridial branches arose 

 from various places on the filament, and never from the oogo- 

 nium. Before reaching the oogonium, they invariably branched 

 a number of times, the branches clasping the same oogonium, 

 except in rare cases when one passed to another (Plate VI., 

 Fig. 15) or even came in contact with none; the number of an- 

 theridia to each female organ varied from one to several, and, 

 in some cases, nearly covered the whole s'urface of the oogoni- 

 um. In most of its characters it agreed quite well with A. 

 polyandra, Hild. (3), and doubtless belongs to that species (Plate 

 VI., Fig. 15). 



MONOBLEPHARIS, ComU. 



As already stated, the distinguishing characters which M. 

 Cornu (2) gives to this genus are, that the zoospores are pro- 

 vided with a single cilium, and the wall of the filaments is 

 not formed of celulose. I have never seen the zoospores pass- 

 ing from the form of sporangium which I have studied, so 

 cannot place it in this genus from the nature of the cilia ; 

 moreover, Lindstedt (4, 55) states that there are forms in some 

 of the other genera which produce zoospores with a single 

 cilium; so that this character alone cannot be considered a 

 distinguishing one until the whole group is more thoroughly 

 worked up. In the character of its filaments it agrees with 

 this genus, and the sexual generation more nearly approaches 

 that of Monoblepharis than it does any other form. 



It differs largely in its specific characters from the two species 

 {M. sphcerica and M. po/ymorp/ia), described by Cornu (2, 82), 

 and probably from the third {M. prolifera), the sexual repro- 

 duction of which he states to be unknown. I do not think 

 that it presents a great enough difference to merit a new genus, 

 and so propose for it the specific name M. lateralis, n. sp., which 

 designates, at the same time, the position of the oogonia and 

 of the antheridia. 



