90 REPORT ON BOTANY, MDCCCXLl : 
remote from the grain, it would be a reason for the conjec- 
ture, that the fungus is quite different from the ergot. The 
author found no sporidia in the interior of the ergotised grain ; 
the nuclei which were in it are lighter than water, whilst, on 
the other hand, the sporidia sink in water; the nuclei melt 
when exposed to heat, and then flow one into another, the 
sporidia do not ; the former also may he dissolved by ether, 
not so the sporidia. The author lastly resorts to a chemical 
analysis, to prove that the ergot is no fungus. The author is 
of opinion, that the green granules of the fungus penetrate 
into the interior of the grasses, and develop themselves upon 
the ovary as upon a proper basis ; they communicate the 
disease when they get into a sound grain, by destroying the 
membranous pericarpium. He terms the fungus Ergotcetia 
abortifaciens, and describes its characteristics as follows : — 
“ Sporidia elliptical, moniliforni, finally separating, transpa- 
rent, and containing seldom more than one, two, or three, well 
defined (greenish) granules.” He finally adds, that a small 
Acarus (of which he also gives a rough illustration) destroys 
the ergot, which is important for the science of pharmacy. 
A brief treatise on this subject, by Francis Bauer, then 
follows. He rejects all external causes for the ergot, and 
terms it a monstrosity. He gives some excellent illustrations, 
in order to prove that it is the scutelluiii which increases in 
size, tears the skin of the pericarpium, and is then coloured 
brown. Since the fungus also occurs on other parts of the 
grass besides the ovary, he is induced to think, that the 
latter does not produce the ergot, but that it only occurs 
incidentally. 
The now deceased excellent artist was certainly right. 
Quekett’s researches and reasons afford more proof against 
the origin of the ergot, from a fungus, than in favour of it. 
And, supposing even that the fungus only did occur in the 
ergotised grain, and did not grow at ail without it, this would 
yet be no sufficient reason for the assertion that it was the 
cause of the ergot. Is Tubercularia vulgaris the cause 
of the dryness of wood, because it is not found upon any 
thing else than dry wood, or only the consequence 1 I laid 
482 
