191 
radiating spore tubes, and later on, in 1878, called attention to unimportant 
characteristics of the mycelium, thus indicating that he was uncertain in 
regard to the systematic importance of the various parts. He gave no 
illustrations, so that it was difficult to tell what he meant. In consequence 
of this, and that he named the fungus Eurotium, some of the later botan- 
ists interpreted the sporangia to be perithecia, and the radiating spore 
tubes asci. 
Cohn, in 1883, in treating of the mould as an industrial factor in the 
manufacture of rice wine, speaks of it as A. oryzae, though he gives no 
morphological characteristics. Btisgen, in 1885, treats of the size and ap- 
pearance of the mycelium, conidiophores, sterigmata, and conidia, though 
not very fully, as these were secondary considerations in his work. He 
also speaks of its resemblance to A. flavescens. Biisgen was the first to 
give a detailed description of the mould so that it was possible to com- 
pare it with other members of the genus. In 1893, Wehmer took up the 
work with the idea of making a detailed examination of the structure, 
and while he was thus engaged, Schréter’s work in the same line appeared. 
‘Wehmer has a very careful, detailed description, and also some excellent 
drawings, and being a careful, conservative investigator, his work is par- 
ticularly valuable. 
Later workers are Takamine, Juhler, Jérgensen, Hansen, Klocker, 
Schio6nning, and Sorel. Takamine is a Japanese chemist who introduced 
the mould into this country for the purpose of its introduction into distil- 
-leries and breweries, his idea being to do away with the malting of the 
grain. This is to be effected by mixing the mould with the crushed grain 
in order to bring about the diastasie change in the starch by a less clumsy 
and more economical manner than the malting. He took out a patent in 
this country on the mould, his patent treating o*its diastasic function 
and its transformation to a yeast. The method was introduced into a dis- 
tillery and there Juhler obtained the mould, and took it to Denmark for 
study in Jérgensen’s laboratory. Juhler claimed that the mould could 
be changed under certain conditions to a yeast, and Jérgensen indorsed 
him, and carried the assertion still farther by claiming that other moulds 
as well as A. oryzae possessed this property. Sorel got like results to 
those of Juhler and Jérgensen, but he makes a still further assertion in 
that he claims to reproduce the mould from the yeast when he sowed the 
yeast in a “not-quite-pure”’ condition upon the rice. The “‘not-quite-pure”’ 
condition undoubtedly accounts for his results. 
