go The Botanical Gazette. 
completely filled the gelatine over considerable areas. Unfor 
tunately, their future fate and their capacity for germination 
were not determined; but that they belong to the Momla 
cannot be doubted, since the threads which gave rise to them 
were seen to originate from Monz//a spores in pure culture and 
the same threads were traced through the gelatine to points 
where they emerged from the surface and became Mowilia 
chains. Be 
In examining the significance of the phenomena described, 
we are led first to ask how the various structures described 
are to be regarded. It is evident that the spores of the 
Monilia chain are not conidia inthe truly morphological sense 
in which Brefeld uses!’ the term. That is, they are not 
spores produced in fructificative fashion on specialized spore 
bearing threads. They are simply slightly individualiaed 
portions of mycelium with the form and physiological chara 
teristics of spores. Though differing in the details of thelr 
development from the spore-chains of the Erysiphee which cor 
stitute the old genus Ozdium, they are morphologically de 
tothem. And indeed, as above noted, some writers have 
cluded the present plant under that generic name. As Di 
feld has shown, all these ‘“Oidien-ketten” are to be regarded # 
the simplest type of chlamydospore formation. A consist 
terminology will, then, designate the common spores © 
Monilia fructigena as chlamydospores of the most ls 
Systematic sense 
_In view of the incompleteness of our knowledge i 
ment or from analogy, since one hesitates to homologize 4 
fully with other described organs of fungi. 
hae the spores of the second form ® 
described are produced on distinct, if short, sporophores * 
*7 Unters. aus dem Gesammt his clearly 
i geb. d. Mykol., 7, 244. This cles 
and fundamentally important distinction between the conidium and the 
spore must be generally recognized 
. 
