PSE en Oe eee oa ee Pa Ase 
See eee 
ROSEN cabinet eee eign, 1a ee Re a PE Se 
1906] OVERTON—THECOTHEUS PELLETIERI 453 
as arising from an oogonium which has been fertilized by an anther- 
idium, thus establishing a sexual process for Monascus. They also 
hold that the asci arise from the cells of ascogenous hyphae; while 
IKENo asserts that there are no ascogenous hyphae, but that uninu- 
cleate spore mother cells arise by free cell formation, which in turn 
form spores also by free cell formation. KuyPER denies any fusion 
of sexual cells in Monascus, mainly confirms IkENo’s observations, 
and regards the spore mother cells as true asci. 
Two forms closely related to Thecotheus in that they belong 
among the Ascobolaceae have been investigated. BARKER (:03, :04) 
in two preliminary notes has described the presence of sexual organs 
in Ryparobius. The development of the ascocarps was observed 
step by step under the microscope in hanging drop cultures. The 
archicarp consists of a small coiled oogonium and a slender anther- 
idium arising from the next cell of the mycelium, growing out over the 
tip of the oogonium, and fusing at the point of contact. Both anther- 
idium and oogonium are uninucleate when first formed, but subse- 
quently nuclear division occurs in each organ. Nuclear fusion probably 
occurs, constituting a regular fertilization, although this process was 
not actually observed. Walls are formed, so that the resulting cells 
are uninucleate with the exception of the penultimate cell of the 
ascogonium, which is sometimes found to contain two nuclei lying 
close together. It will be seen that there is great similarity between 
Ascobolus and Ryparobius as to the morphology of both the asco- 
gonia and the ascocarps. The ascogenous hyphae, however, do not 
originate from aay particular cell of the ascogonium, as has been 
described for Ascobolus. 
CLAUSSEN (:05) has also worked out the morphology of the asco- 
carp of a form which he at first believed to be Boudiera hy perborea, 
-but which Hennrncs (:03) described as a new species under the 
name of B. Clausseni. CAVARA (:05), basing his conclusions upon 
CLAUSSEN’s figures, descriptions, and culture methods, believes 
that this fungus is not a new species of Boudiera, as HENNINGS has 
described, but that it corresponds perfectly to a species of Ascodesmis, 
which has been described by VAN TIEGHEM (’76) and later by ZUKAL 
(86). Van TrecHem described in detail two species, A. nigricans 
and A. aurea. CAVARA believes that the fungus is A. nigricans 
