GYMNOASCACEM 



987 



We, however, classify them as given above, and our reasons for 

 so doing may be set forth in a short historical statement. 



Historical. — In 1844 Gmby discovered the parasite of ringworm, and this 

 was verified in 1845 by Malmsten, who proposed two generic names for the 

 new fungus — i.e., ' Trichophyton ' or 'Trychomyces ' — and one specific name, 

 ' Tonsurans.' The first generic name has become estabhshed, and the genus, 

 the systemic position of which we are about to review, is now known as Tricho- 

 phyton Malmsten, 1845; very often the date given is 1848, which is that of 

 the pubhcation of the German translation, and not the date of the original 

 Swedish work, the name being derived from dpL^, ' hair,' and cpvTov, ' a plant.' 



Malmsten believed the genus Trichophyton to be closely related to the genus 

 Torula Persoon, 1801, and especially to the species T. olivacea Corda, 1837, 

 and T. abbreviata Corda, 1837. 



This relationship was adopted by Charles Robin in his celebrated work 

 ' Histoire Naturelle des Vegetaux Parasites,' published in 1853. His classifi- 

 cation is as follows: — Fungi: Division, Arthrosporei ; Tribe, Torulacei ; Genus, 

 Trichophyton Malmsten. 



In 1886 Hallier regarded the relationship to be closely allied to the genus 

 Penicillium Link, 1809. 



In 1875 Grawitz made a new assertion, claiming that the relationship was 

 with Odspora Wallroth, 1833, a view which was adopted by Baumgarten in his 

 ' Pathologischen Mykologie ' in 1890. 



Later researches by Duclaux in 1886, by Verujsky in 1887, and still later 

 by Sabouraud, indicated that some of the species should be classified near to 

 Sporotrichum Link, 1809, which suggestion has been adopted by Saccardo in 

 his ' Sylloge Fungorum,' though he goes further, making Trichophyton merely 

 a synonym of Sporotrichum. 



Bodin (i 899-1 902) brought forward views tending to show that the relation- 

 ship is complex, some of the species being allied to Endoconidium Prillieux 

 and Delacroix, 1891 (a genus which lately disappeared, having become Stroma- 

 tinia Prillieux, 1897), while other species were held to be more closely related 

 to Acladium Link, 1809, and to Haplaria Link, 1809. These views are based 

 upon a study of the sporulation, and indicate that Trichophyton is a genus 

 belonging to Fuckel's class Fungi Imperfecti, and, adopting the older methods 

 of classification, to the subclass HyphomycetecB Martins, 1817, the family 

 Mucedinace<:s Link, 1809, subfamily AmerosporecB Saccardo, 1886, tribe 

 MacronemcB Saccardo, 1886, and subtribe BotrytidcB Saccardo, 1886. 



In June, 1899, Matruchot and Dassonville published a paper entitled * Sur 

 la Position systematique des Trichophytons,' and followed it later in the same 

 year by another paper entitled ' Sur le Ctenomyces serratus (Eidam) compare 

 aux Champignons des teignes.' Briefly stated, their view is that the genus 

 Trichophyton Malmsten, 1845, belongs to the Ascomycetes of De Bary, if this 

 is taken to include Hemiascomycetes of Brefeld. In either case, whether 

 these classifications or Schroeter's more detailed arrangement of the Ascomy- 

 cetes be adopted does not concern our present purpose, as both contain the 

 family Gymnoascacese (often written Gymnoascese) , in which Matruchot and 

 Dassonville place the genus Trichophyton. 

 Their reasons for this classification are: — ■ 



1. Ctenomyces serratus Eidam, 1880, is a fungus found on the feathers of 

 birds, which, when cultivated on Sabouraud's proof media, produces growths 

 strikingly analogous to those of species of Trichophyton. 



2. Ctenomyces serratus, when inoculated into animals, gives rise to lesions, 

 resembling a Trichophyton eruption, in which it appears in a filamentous 

 form. 



3. A fungus closely resembling a ctenomyces, which they found in a ring- 

 worm in a dog, when cultivated gave rise to perithecia. For this fungus they 

 created a new genus, Eidamella Matruchot and Dassonville, 1901, calling the 

 given species Eidamella spinosa Matruchot and Dassonville, 1901. 



Against this view Sabouraud has pointed out that in the cultures of this 

 fungus they found intercalary chlamydospores. but neither fusiform bodies 



