MONOGKAPII OF THE L ABOULBENIACE-T^. 251 
rART ir. 
NOTE COKCEliNIXG THE SYSTE^rATlC rC^ITIOX OF THE LABOULBKXTACE.E. 
The systematic position of the Laboulbenlacea) lias been a matter of much un- 
certainty, and even in the light of a fuller knowledge, both of the forms and of their 
development, it still remains nndetcrmincd what arc their immediate connections 
within the group of Ascomycctcs to which they must undoubtedly be referred. As 
we have seen, jNIuntagne and Robin (1853), who were the first to describe them as 
plants, speak of the single genus then known as " e familia Pyrcnomycctum novum 
genus," and compare it to Capnodium, although they made no observations on the 
origin of the spores. Later, Karsten, who first included them in the Mucorini (1869)? 
places them (1895) in a group of " Stigmatomycetes," between the Ustilagineas and 
Pyrenomycetes; but 
tly observed the essential fact of 
the occurrence of fecundation, he denies the presence of asci, and gives a quite errone- 
ous account of the spore formation. Peyritsch (1871, 1873), although his observa- 
tions on the procc-s of fecundation were incorrect, was the first to present any definite 
evidence of their ascomycetous nature ; yet it seems doubtful whether asci were seen 
even by him, since his reference to them as "eight to twelve spored" indicates the 
correctness of the criticism made by Karsten, who held that these "asci" were 
merely the ordinary 
of spores, coherent in a fusifor 
wont, and surrounded by their own gelatinous envelopes, which were mistaken for the 
ascus wall. This element of uncertainty in the observations of Peyritsch led Dc Bary 
to place the group among his " Doubtful Ascomycetes," a disposition in which he has 
been followed by most systematists who have alluded to the group at all. In any 
case, it is at present definitely determined that asci, containing four or very rarely 
t 
eight spores, always occur ; and that they are beyond question the morphological 
equivalents of the corresponding structures in the Ascomycetes generally. It further 
seems undenial^le that these bodies are of sexual origin, in view of the evidence 
adduced in the foregoing pages. If, then, we admit both the sexual and the asco- 
mycetous nature of these plants, their consideration becomes a very important factor 
