STRUCTURE. 53 



or less branched sporangia-bearers and he typical sporangiola 

 frills ; and we arrive at last at the conclusion simply to place the 

 latter among the varieties of form which the sporangia-bearer 

 of the Mucor mucedo shows, like every other typical organic 

 form within certain limits. On the other hand, propagation 

 organs, differing from those of the sporangia and their products, 

 belong to Mucor mucedo, which may be termed conidia. On 

 the dung (they are rare on any other substance) these appear at 

 the same time, or generally somewhat later, than the sporangia- 

 bearers, and are not unlike those to the naked eye. In a more 

 accurate examination, they appear different ; a thicker, partition- 

 less filament rises up and divides itself, generally three-forked, at 

 the length of one millimetre, into several series of branchlets. 

 The forked branches of the last series bear under their points, 

 which are mostly capillary, short erect 

 little ramuli, and these, with which 

 the ends of the principal branches ar- 

 ticulate on their somewhat broad tops, 

 several spores and conidia, near one 

 another; about fifteen to twenty are 

 formed at the end of each little ra- 

 mulus. The peculiarities and varia- 

 tions which O often appear in the Fio. 32. Small portion of Botrytis 

 . _ . .. , Jouesii, 



ramification need not be discussed 



here. After the articulation of the conidia, their bearers sink 

 together by degrees, and are quite destroyed. The ripe conidia 

 are round like a ball, their surface is scarcely coloured, and almost 

 wholly smooth. These conidioid forms were at first described 

 as a separate species under the name of Botrytis Jonesii. How, 

 then, do they belong to the Mucor ? * That they appear grega- 

 riously is as little proof of an original relation to one another, 

 here as elsewhere. Attempts to prove that the conidia and spo- 

 rangia-bearers originate on one and the same mycelium filament 

 may possibly hereafter succeed. Till now this has not been the case, 



* We are quite aware that Von Tieghem and Le Mourner, in " Ann. des Sci. 

 Nat." 1873, p. 335, dispute that this belongs to Mitcor mucedo, and assert that 

 Chcetocladiu.ni Jonesii is itself a true Mucor, with monosporous sporangia. 



