Mould Growths upon Cold-store Meat. 123 
(b) the rough conidial walls of Cladosporium, 
(c) the production of conidia by Hormodendron in a higher 
concentration of KNO, than Cladosporium, 
is not supported by the present work. 
No indication of any connection of Cladosporium herbarum 
with Dematium pullulans as mentioned by Delacroix and 
Maublanc (4) was observed in the course of this work, neither 
was there any evidence of a perithecial form as described by 
Janczewski (7-9). 
V. DISCUSSION. 
Lindau in Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamen-Flora in a note on the 
genus Cladosporium, mentions the great range of the species 
C. herbarum, and the consequent difficulty in diagnosing both 
this species and the whole genus. In a note on the “‘species”’ 
C. epiphyllum he expresses a doubt as to whether it is distinct 
from C. herbarum, and says that the two are often confused. 
In the present work it was impossible to distinguish the 
Dutch culture of C. efiphyllum from some of the other forms. 
The whole of the present series of forms with the exception of 
No. 47 (C. carpophilum from Holland) were so closely allied in 
cultural and microscopic characters that separation into distinct 
species was impossible. 
In Rabenhorst’s Kryptogamen-Flora and also in Saccardo’s 
Sylloge, the various “‘species’’ of Cladosporium are grouped more 
or less according to the substratum upon which they occur. 
This is very unsatisfactory, especially in view of the enormous 
range of hosts of the single species C. herbarum, and it is more 
than probable, in the light of the present work, that the great 
majority of the “species” described in these works ought to be 
included in C. herbarum. The diagnoses of many of the species 
are so vague that they cannot be taken seriously into considera- 
tion. Certainly, as a result of the present work, the two “‘species’”’ 
C. epiphyllum and C. Aphidis must be included as synonyms of 
C. herbarum. These forms were sent from the Centraalbureau 
voor Schimmelcultures, Amsterdam, and represent, in our 
opinion, merely strains of the species C. herbarum. 
On the other hand, the culture of C. carpophilum from the 
same source differed so greatly from all other strains that it 
must be retained as a distinct species. Thus, in view of the 
present work, the species of Cladosporium should be revised 
entirely, and diagnosed afresh, not only on the basis of their 
host plants and morphological characters as found in nature, 
but also upon their cultural characters. ‘ 
