1912] GRIGGS—RHODOCHYTRIUM . 135 
almost everything put into it. Nor did the color fade during the 
prolonged soaking in alcohol and hot chloroform incident to 
imbedding in paraffine. But when after sectioning it was treated 
with turpentine, it quickly dissolved. Although easily soluble in 
carbon disulphide after the spores are broken open, as stated above, 
it resists that reagent indefinitely (three months) when bits of the 
host plant containing the spores are treated with it. It was like- 
wise unaffected by three months’ treatment with xylol, benzene, 
chloroform, absolute alcohol, ether, and turpentine. It was also 
undimmed in brilliance after 6 days’ maceration in 10 per cent 
hydrofluoric acid. 
One of the most conspicuous features of the material was the 
great difference in certain respects between that collected in 1908 
and that in rg10. In the former the zoospores (figs. 32-34), and for 
the most part the zoosporangia also, after the first division (fig. 27) 
were entirely destitute of starch, their cytoplasm being clear and 
finely granular. But in the latter the zoosporangia (figs. 15, 27) 
and almost all of the zoospores as well (fig. 35) were abundantly 
supplied with starch, which on account of its refractive and staining 
properties greatly interfered with the observation of nuclear 
phenomena. The condition of the zoospores was of course reflected 
in the young cysts, which in 1908 had at first clear granular cyto- 
plasm without a sign of starch grains or any other structures 
(figs. 2, 3, 14), while in 1910 the cytoplasm was packed with small 
starch grains from the first (figs. 1, 11, 12). There were also 
some differences in the nuclear behavior in the two cases. Those 
figures which are interpreted as amitosis are almost entirely con- 
fined to the 1908 material. The plugs of the zoosporangia are also 
very different in the material of the two years as described below 
(p. 136). Moreover, there is reason to believe that similar varia- 
tions occur in the Ecuadorean form, because there are discrepancies 
between LAGERHEIM’s account and that portion of his material 
which I have examined, which would be inexplicable to me if I 
knew only the 1908 material of the form on Ambrosia. These 
differences serve to emphasize the caution we must use in inter- 
preting cytological results. They can hardly fail to suggest that 
somé of the numerous instances where one investigator does not 
