CHAPTER V.—COMPARATIVE REVIEW.—MUCORINI. 157 
Historical Remarks. The course of development in the Mucorini was first 
observed throughout by myself in my examination of Sporodinia or Syzygites mega- 
locarpus carried out in 1860 and published in a complete form in 1864, and next 
by Tulasne in 1867 in Mucor fusiger, after he had already shown in 1855 that the 
fungal forms designated by the generic names above given are parts of the same 
species. Schacht’s observations on Sporodinia! were published at the same time as my 
own and not before them, and his results agreed with mine. For the further enlarge- 
ment of our knowledge of this rich group we are indebted mainly to Brefeld and Van 
Tieghem. In the work? which I brought out in conjunction with Woronin in 1865 I 
gave a fresh account of the development of Rhizopus nigricans, but it was imperfect, as 
it did not contain the full history of the germination of the zygospores ; and some 
confusion was caused in the same work by our introducing Chaetocladium, a parasite 
on Mucor, into the cycle of forms of Mucor Mucedo on the evidence of cultures, which, 
through my fault not Woronin’s, were not perfectly regulated. It is not true indeed 
that Thamnidium elegans was also introduced into the same cycle, but it would be no 
serious fault if it had been, because it can form gonidiophores without sporangiola which 
are then scarcely to be distinguished from those of Mucor Mucedo, and the separation 
or non-separation of two species nearest to one another is almost without effect on 
the determination of the course of development of the Mucoreae. Then Brefeld at 
my instigation undertook a revision of ‘the apparently irregular pleomorphy’ of the 
collective supposed Mucor Mucedo and succeeded in making out the true state of the 
matter. Van Tieghem and Le Monnier confirmed and added first to our incorrect, and 
then to Brefeld’s correct results. 
Other views on the course of development in the Mucorini differing from those 
given above, especially the idea of a genetic connection between Mucor and Saccha- 
romyces, which will be noticed again in section LXXVIII, belong to the history of the 
pleomorphy craze (page 126). The special literature already cited and to be cited below 
contains references to it. The reader is referred to the same source for an account of 
the strange controversy maintained at an earlier time on the subject of the structure of 
the sporangifim of Mucor. In the case of a group so much discussed as the Mucorini 
we can only give the main sources of information, in which some further and more 
particular references on points of detail will be found. 
Literature of the Mucorini. 
DE BARY and WORONIN, Beiträge, I and II. 
TULASNE, Note sur les phénoménes de Copulation, &c. (Ann. d. sc. nat. sér. 5, VI, 
1867). 
O. BREFELD, Bot. Unters. ii. Schimmelpilze, I and IV. 
P. VAN TIEGHEM et G. LE MONNIER, Recherches sur les Mucorinées (Ann. d. sc. nat. 
sér. 5, XVII, 1873); cited in the text as Van Tieghem, I ;—Id., Nouvelles Recher- 
ches sur les Mucorinées (Ann. d. sc. nat. sér. 6, I, 1875); cited in the text as Van 
Tieghem, II ;—Id., Troisitme mémoire sur les Mucorinées in Ann. d. sc. nat. ser. 
6, IV (1878) ; cited in the text as Van Tieghem, III. 

G. FRESENIUS, Beitr. z. Mycologie, I (1850), III (1863). 
E. CoEMANS, Spicilége mycologique No. 3, in Bull. Soc. Bot. Belg. I (Kickxella) ;—Id., 
Quelques Hyphomycétes nouveaux (Mortierella, Martensella), in Bull. Acad. roy. 
de Belgique, ser. 2, XV ;—Id., Recherches sur le polymorphisme et les différents 
appareils de reproduction chez les Mucorinées, I et II (Bull. Acad. roy. de Belgique, 
XVI) ;—Id., Monographie du genre Pilobolus (Mém. couronné de l’Acad. roy. d. 
Belg. XXX). 

1 Sitzungsber. d. Niederth. Ges. z. Bonn, 7 Apr. 1864. 
2 Beitr. II. 
