68 T R R E Y A 



were established in various countries and taxonomic work with the fungi went 

 forward at a rapid rate. 



Thus far we have given consideration chiefly to the describing, naming and 

 classifying of the many and varied forms. The earlier workers naturally were 

 concerned with these phases of study. It should not be concluded, however, 

 that there were not some, even among the early workers, who were intrigued 

 with the possibilities of studying the development and life-histories of the 

 forms with which they worked. There were suggestions that relationships 

 might exist between different forms which were found in close association. 

 The impress left by De Bary on this phase of mycological work is well known. 

 He began his work about the middle of the nineteenth century and the type 

 of investigation which it stimulated has continued up to the present. He found 

 time to work not only with fungi but also with algae, myxomycetes, bacteria, 

 and higher plants. It is said that no less than 68 workers, afterwards distin- 

 guished in science, studied under him at Strassburg. According to Erwin F. 

 Smith, "His work and that of his students put plant pathology on a new 

 foundation, and he also, undoubtedly had much influence on human and ani- 

 mal pathology, since his very successful infection experiments with fungi on 

 plants suggested many things to those who were trying to determine the cause 

 of human and animal plagues." Yet we must agree that the primary interest 

 of De Bary was in morphology rather than in pathology. 



Using a good microscope and employing micro-chemical reagents De Bary 

 made important advances in the knowledge of spores, infection, and mycelia. 

 His cultural demonstration of heteroecism in Puccinia graminis, with proof 

 that the aecidium on barberry was a stage in the life-cycle of wheat rust is well 

 known. These results were announced in 1865. This work, and more which 

 followed, ushered in a new phase of mycological endeavor. It is significant that 

 he began these investigations not out of pure scientific interest, but in order 

 to settle controversies between agriculturists and botanists regarding the rela- 

 tion between smuts and rusts and diseases. Agriculturists thought them to be 

 the causes of disease while botanists were inclined to regard them as products 

 of disease. De Bary had himself resisted the suggestion of a possible alternation 

 of generations which required an alternation of hosts plants. When his experi- 

 ments led to that conclusion, his naive statement that "one comes around, per- 

 haps, in a way, to the ancient opinion according to which rusted wheat would 

 be infected by the fust of barberry" is most interesting. His experiences should 

 be heartening to many present-day investigators who are required to work on 

 projects w^hich are economic and agricultural in nature. Out of such problems 

 may arise basic scientific discoveries as in the case of De Bary. 



The next epoch in the study of the fungi after De Bary was ushered in by 

 the study of the nucleus and its behavior. This gave a new direction to the 



