1896.] Botany. 221 



elongated hyaline spore 20-30,u. long which is either smooth (fig. 4), 

 verrucose (fig. 6) or echinulate (fig. 5)." 



Nearer the centre of the gelatinous mass he says the asci are less 

 plainly differentiated and frequently contain no spores (fig. 7). He 

 submitted the fungus to chemical tests and found a great abundance of 

 cellulose, but no glycogen, a substance usually present in Tubers. 



The ordinary structure of the plant is, according to the author, as 

 described above. As to its relation to Polyporus mylittce which is fre- 

 quently found growing from it, he says : , " A specimen from the British 

 Museum removes all doubt. This specimen like many others has a 

 central cavity on one of the walls of which is seen a pulvinate mas- 

 formed by the hymenium of Polyporus mylittce. This pulvinus does not 

 possess true pores, but only small hemispherical cavities on its surface 

 and numerous small rounded closed cavities in its interior which are 

 covered by the hymenium. The mass ef hyphas which forms the base 

 of this hymenium i> identical with the opaque white tissue which com- 

 poses the walls of the cavities of nearly mature examples of Mylitta. 

 Notwithstanding the presence of the pores and the thicker and more 

 crowded hyphse disposed after the manner of palisade tissue so char- 

 acteristic of the hymenium of ordinary Hymenomycetes, the specimen 

 is unfortunately sterile. 



The particular disposition of the hymenium and the continuity and 

 identity which exists between it and the sterile tissue of MyHtta estab- 

 lishes the fact that there exists between Mylitta and the Polyporus an inti- 

 mate relation of the same nature as that which exists between the differ- 

 ent stages in the life history of many fungi. Hence it follows that a 

 carpophore of a Hymenomycete (Polyporus mylittce) is here in reality 

 the conidiophore of an Ascomycete (Mylitta australis). If this conclu- 

 sion is true in the present case, it ought to be admitted that this is the 

 relation which exists in general between the Basidiomycetes and 

 Ascomycetes." ! ! ! 



Such are the author's preposterous conclusions, and thus is the 

 autonomy of the Basidomycetes calmly disposed of. 



One's first impulse is that this is a huge joke, but when you reflect 

 that it emanates from the Belgian Academy of Sciences and is ta ( un- 

 accepted by Ferry one of the editors of the Revue Myeologique the 

 matter takes a serious aspect and it seems necessary to file a protest. 



Ferry adds that DeBary long ago expressed the opinion that the 

 Basidiomycetes and Uredineae may be conidial forms of Ascomycetes. 

 The only statement I find in DeBary 5 touching the point comes far 



1 DeBary, Comp. Morph. and Biol, of Fungi (Eng. trans.), p. 341. 



