1920] THAXTER— FUNGUS-PARASITES 19 



the wall, its general appearance and texture, are also very like 

 some of the Chytridiales, and unlike that of the Thaxteriolae, 

 with which I was at first inclined to associate them. My present 

 impression, however, is that they have little if any relationship 

 to one another. There seems no reason to believe that they are not, 

 like the Chytridiales, strictly unicellular. Although their develop- 

 mental history is not, as yet, exactly known, it seems probable, from 

 an examination of the stages available, that the sequence of events 

 may be very similar to that seen in the temporary sporangia of 

 Cladochytrium Alismatis, for example. On the basis of this supposi- 

 tion the original cell may be assumed to divide completely into 

 spores, as has been the case in the individual of A. entomophila 

 (fig. 45). Figs. 26, 27, and 29 of my former paper, on the other 

 hand, may well be interpreted as illustrating different periods in 

 the spore discharge, which may be, in part at least, effected by 

 pressure exerted as the result of an intrusion into the sporogonium 

 of a new sporogenous cell, which may be assumed to fill the cavity 

 after the spores have effected their exit, and to become transformed 

 into another spore mass to be discharged in a similar fashion, 

 there is no indication that cilia are present on the spores, it is not 

 easy to see how otherwise the sporangium could be completely 

 emptied through so narrow an orifice. However this may be, it is 

 evident from the condition shown in fig. 45 that the generic diagno- 

 sis must be modified, no sterile basal cell being clearly distinguished. 

 It is also evident, however, that the true position of this type, 

 as well as the exact sequence of events in its development, have yet 

 to be accurately ascertained. I should not be reluctant even to 

 turn it over to the zoologists, although E. G. Racovitra, who has 

 figured a more simple type observed on crustaceans (Arch. Zool. 

 Exp. 1907-1908. pi. 10. fig. 26; 1908-1909. p. 272. fig. 2), speaks 

 of it as " une Laboulbeniacea parasite. " Further references of this 

 nature, if they have occurred within the past few years, have 

 escaped my notice, with the exception of the account given by 

 Spegazzini in the paper already cited, in which he described under 

 the name Amphoropsis three species: A. minuta on Hister, said to 

 be the same as that represented in fig. 29 of my previous paper; 

 A . subminuta on Echiaster, represented as somewhat more pointed 



