io6 Natural History Bulletin. 



ticular field of investigation. Thus the first described Slime- 

 mould identifiable by its description is Lycogala epidendrum 

 (Buxb.) the most puff-ball-looking of the whole series. Ray, 

 in 1690, called this Fiino-ns coccincus. In 17 18, Ruppius 

 described the same thing as Ly coper don sano-uineiim ; Dillen- 

 ius at about the same time, as Bovista miniaia, and it was not 

 until 1729, that Micheli so far appreciated the structure of the 

 little puff-ball as to give it a definite generic place and title, 

 Lycogala globosiim. But Micheli's light was too strong for his 

 generation. As Fries one hundred years later quaintly says: 

 u « * * * immortalis Micheli tarn ciaram lucem accendit ut 

 successores proximi earn ne ferre quidem potuerint." Not- 

 withstanding Micheli's clear distinctions, he was entirely dis- 

 regarded, and our little Lycogala was dubbed Lvcoperdon and 

 Macor down to the end of the century; and so it was not till 

 1790 that Persoon comes around to the standpoint of Micheli 

 and writes Lycogala miniata. Fries himself reviewing the 

 labors of his predecessors all, grouped the Slime-moulds as a 

 sub-order of the Gasteromycetes and gave expression to his 

 view of their nature and position when he named the sub- •■ 

 order Myxogastres. In 1833, Link^ having more prominently 

 in mind the minuteness of most of the species collocated by 

 Fries, and perceiving perhaps more clearly even than the 

 great mycologist the entire independence of the group, sug- 

 gested as a substitute for the sub-order Myxogastres^ the 

 order Myxoinycetes, Sl/'me-moiilds. Link's decision passed 

 unchallenged for nearly thirty years. The Slime -moulds 

 were set apart by themselves; they were fungi without ques- 

 tion and, of course, plants. 



If the hypha (See Bulletin Lab. Nat. Hist. Vol. I, p. 32.) 

 is the morphological test of a fungus, then it is plain that the 

 Slime-moulds are not fungi. No myxom^'-cete has hyphae 

 nor indeed anything at all of the kind. Nevertheless there 

 are certain parasitic fungi, {^ChytridiacccB) whose relationships 



I Raunkiaer, Myxomycetes Danice, p. 7, shows that Link and not Wallroth 

 as usually supposed, is entitled to this honor. 



