L>S 1 THAXTEB. — MONOGRAPH OF THE LABOULBENIACE^. 
fertile brand] is unable, or barely able, to reach its base, a curious variety of conditions may result; the 
most 
form 
whole habit of growth of the secondary receptacle is changed, becoming identical with that of types like 
//. clmlophUus (fig. 14). A form which has barely reached the base of the bristle is represented in fig. 
10, and in this instance a rudimentary shield has been formed, while in fig. 9, one more fully, though 
illy developed, is present. Enough transitional conditions have been examined to make 
Hinnn 
it evident that figs. 7 and S represent individuals of the same species. The existence of such remarkable 
variations in a single species indicates that it is necessary to use considerable caution in determining the 
limitations of species in this genus. 
The mal< 
H 
one or two antheridia directly from the typical four-celled primary receptacle; while others may show 
much greater complication; the most highly developed type being illustrated by //. Ectobiw, the second- 
ary male receptacles of which may produce several hundred antheridia. The latter, in all species are 
8 of the simple type, usually elongate and often showing no very marked distinction between 
venter. In a single specimen of H. Paranensis the development of antheridia from a 
ingle receptacle has been observed; an abnormal condition which finds a parallel among hermaphro- 
dite form-, in which antheridia occasionally replace perithecia, as has been already illustrated in my 
former Monoirninh. 
and 
ri^ 
genen 
i & 
sccon 
H. Anaplectoe. Such male 
receptacles m this species are, however, rudimentary, and the antheridia are generally produced from the 
primary receptacle. The immediate affinities of the genus are not apparent, and there appears to be no 
Obvious connection between it and the other dioecious genera with simple antheridia (Amorphomijces and 
Ihovxmyct*). Although the hal.it of producing fertile branches which grow horizontally from the primarv 
K ptadc is found m other dinvious genera like Dimorphomyces, there is no other instance in the whole 
4 ¥1*4 ft I 2 I . I t 1 T1 * I * I , i I h %-» a * 4 ». i- . _ ... __M*lll a 
1 
means 
It is not difficult, 
lowcvcr. to imagine how a form like Dimorphomyces Thlcoporw, for example, might originate a somewhat 
sinular condition .through the production from its fertile branch of rhizoidal attachments; since it already 
Jie Host. Among the known dioecious forms, however, which are char- 
Mth which the members of the present genus would be naturally supposed 
n pie antheridia and 
fcly associated than 
branches. n.nd thm 
turr nf the per 
Ik* assumed t<> 
ly from those of Ilerpomyces. lhe st rue- 
in the general structure of both sexes might 
orphomyces or Dioicomyces, although the occur- 
Z , '"'?." m ; l "" la! ' " hi '' h are SU >'l >osei1 "> "» representatives of oni of the most ancient 
' r ' i . i, , h T '7 '" aI>S " VC ^ ' X| "" tel1 ,0 "» ««•*»«' «» » »°™ l'ri'ni'ivc type in the 
- • But h ,„,, g h , , u „, s ,. xua , fomis with simp|e anther . (]ia f()r p teUuned 
type, and AmorpJiomyces 
» ».f -nipm , n rapture of all the Laboulbeniales. 
Although I have as 
appea 
r;i,:!; t ■ ;,' !"•;?, u " ab i e d " fini,ti - v to detCTmi ™ * p-h .I- »*< 
1*. <£»** tins ,s the case, it is a character .shared only bv M« f fc 
r of spares in an 
«■.¥"». It „,c l,c of iuteres. ,„ note ZtZL ™ Tf I T5 "* ■**"*••»' "? T 
»- —4 numemus mi IUcc„ s in h rhT e 7„ P I?\: fUrthCr T7 blanrein T^r" 
* !". "* K— °' a pecuiiar bwSft^^T^ ^ ^ ' S U "' qUe 
ess which is nft*>n AQQcmL _ _.,!.... i^uccbb near 
terminal 
c-« of .hi- ; ,, )p , „ da g„ , „,„ lma , c ^ ' " IT ™7 re 7 ta * <«-> XLI, figs. 10, 14, 18). The signifi- 
g »un., hit to suggest. Although very characteristic, it may sometimes be absent. 
