THK oiiiory OK the salvhakomvcktes. 



1 1 1 



cycle of ileveloiniient uf im A-«omyre^, and cousecjuentlv t^ike a 

 step upwards in the IxJtiiuical system. Tliis point, wliicli uiay 

 also lay some claim to the attention of eaint'>t investi-rators 

 will he hrietly toiahetl upon in a later chaptt-r dealing with 

 Dematlum pullulang. At present, on the other hand, we luive 

 to d.-al concistdy with a c-oui>1l* of recent assimiptions, or nither 

 with the demonstration of thi-ir inapplicahilitv. 



In 1S95 J. Jlulek (I.) enlij:hteji»'d the world with the sen- 

 siitional rejMirt that he had succee<letl in so inHueiicing a species 

 of A>'j>'rijillu^ as to cause it to develop S(t'-rhaioiniires cells that 

 produced alcohol. A njmmunication shortly afterwaitls issue<l 

 by Alkueu .Ioehoexsex (II.), in whose laUratory the alleged 

 discovery was made, explained that Afjien/illiui ori/za- was in 

 question. They were quickly followed l)y E. Sohel (I.), who 

 completed the beautiful circle by an alleged ca.se of retro"res- 

 sion to the original mould fungus on the part of yejist cells 

 stilted to have originate.l from this Asj^^njiUns. It was disturb- 

 ing to observe the amount of perplexity induced by the.se publi- 

 cations, not among niycologi>ts but on the part of a huge 

 number of fermentation technologists, as can be seen, for 

 instiince, in the case of a treatise by Eckenuoth and Heim.\.\.v 

 (I.), who occupied themselves in a very .similar manner with a 

 Peni'illium. In the interest of this branch it was nec-e.ssjirv 

 ind indi.spen.vible that the.se hypotheses should be examine.! 

 and refuted in all points by a number of workers schooled in 

 l>otjiny. The credit of having shared in this ta.sk— a .somewhat 

 thankless one from the scientific stjindpoint— is chieflv due to 

 Kueckeu and S. hi.knmni; (I. and 11.), and al.s<j bv O. Seiter 

 ( I.), I'. Wkmmei: (\'111.). and J. \Voktm.v.nx (IX.). All of them 

 irriveil at the harmonious conclusion that not under anv cir- 

 cumstances, even the conditions of culture selectetl by j'uhler, 

 Joergensen, and .Sorel, could any developmetit of vea.st cells 

 take place from A/</>€r'fi/hui nrt/zii; or conversion of ^iurfuiru- 

 fiiycea cells into this mould fungus. The same also applies 

 to other .species of A.<jH'n/ii/ii,< examined with the s;ime object by 



KniiCKEK and 8cUI(E.VXIXCi. 



Consequently it may be averred that no proof, in any ji;ir- 

 ticular, has yet been affoi\le<l in support of the hy|>othesis that 

 Siirf-luiromi/'-ti'S are derived from other fun"i. 



We therefore maint^iin that the distinguishing ch.inicteri.-tic 

 of the term .Sot-rhai-onii/re^ is a purely lxjt4inico-morpholo"ic;il 

 one. namely, the capacity of the cell for protlucing ascospores. 

 The methiKl of formation of the latter will be fullv described in 

 § 247- -^JJ the ^a'-'-Jiaroint/i't'tt,-' are budding fungi, i.r. thev ve"e- 

 tate in the form of a budiling mycelium of the kind deicribetl 

 in ^ 2 19, On the other hand, lu)wever. not every butldim; funt^us 

 is a ^ao'hanniii/res. The term yeast has two i'miKntant chanic- 

 teristics: one Uiorphological, the other physiological. In the 



