1gtt] CURRENT LITERATURE 155 
shown by the fact that they sometimes occur apart from any connection with 
the young ascocarps. Moreover, the development of asci proceeds in a region 
remote from the ‘‘trichogynes.” The ascogonial hyphae are differentiated 
in the basal part of the mass of interwoven hyphae; they are characterized 
by their larger size and larger nuclei. No nuclear fusions were observed in 
the ascogonia, which seem to have lost their function and appear soon to degen- 
erate. Apparently the ascogenous hyphae do not arise from them, but from 
other hyphae near the base of the perithecium, which appear after the asco- 
gonia disintegrate. The asci arise from the terminal part of the ascogenous 
hyphae without the hook-formation common in ascomycetes. Other cells 
of the ascogenous hyphae may also grow out into asci. The ascus cells contain 
two nuclei which fuse as usual, whereupon three successive divisions occur, 
forming the eight spore-nuclei. The first of the three divisions is regarded as 
a reduction division, to counterbalance the single fusion which was observed. 
After the spore membrane has been formed, the nucleus of each spore divides 
again, a septum dividing the spore into two unequal cells being formed between 
the daughter nuclei—H. HaAssELBRING. 
Insect galls.—The past few years have d trated an increasing interest 
in the study of cecidology, and, as in all biological subjects, the first work is 
taxonomic. A few of the interesting papers of the past few months are as 
ollows: PEREz* discusses the cecidia of Eritrea, describing 36 species of galls 
and one gall-maker. The descriptions are clear and the technical names of 
the host plants are given, but there are no figures. The VAN LEEUWEN-REIJN- 
VAANS* discuss the cecidia of Java, describing 150 species on almost as many 
host plants. Most of these galls were collected at Salatiga at an elevation of 
about 600 meters; and they were found to be much more abundant in the 
moist than in the dry localities. Descriptions are given of the galls, and in 
many cases of the insects also, but the authors state that in describing the gall 
it is not necessary to describe the gall-maker, a view which is contrary to the 
views of some of our American entomologists, but with which the reviewer 
is in hearty sympathy. Most of the descriptions are accompanied by good 
figures. TROTTER* gives descriptions of 19 species of galls occurring on 14 host 
plants. His descriptions also include the bibliographies of those previously 
described. Howarp* has described 52 species of Dr. SicHELs’ collection, 
which is deposited in the Entomological Museum of Natural History in Paris. 
He also mentions a number of old galls of unknown origin. MAssALoNnco* 
3 PEREZ, T. DE STEFANI, Altri Zoocecidii dell’ Eritrea. Marcellia 8:7-18. 1909. 
4 LEEUWEN-REIJNVAAN, J. und W., Docrors, Einige Gallen aus Java. Op. cit. 
8: 21-35, 85-122. 1900; 9:37-61. IgI0. 
*s Trotter, A. Nuovi Zoocecidii della Flora Italiana. Op. cit. 8: 50-59. 
© Howarp, C., Les collections cécidologiques du Laboratoire Entomol du 
Museum ie Naturelle de Paris: L’Herbier du Dr. StcHEL. Op. cit. 65-78. 
27 MASsALONGO, C., Galle e simili produzioni anormali. Op. cit. 133-141. 
