the Ascocarp in Monascus. 199 
owing to the exigences of the structure of the perithecium. 
The early large vacuoles are the first-formed hyphae, and the 
later small vacuoles are the numerous branches of various sizes 
arising from these hyphae. The confusing optical features of 
the mass of entwined hyphae are responsible for the opaque 
appearance noticeable later, while Went’s failure to discern 
the moment and method of spore-formation is naturally due 
to the nature of the development of the spores in asci, they 
being under the surrounding conditions only clearly visible 
when fully formed. The apparent angularity of the spores, 
mentioned earlier, which gave rise to the idea that they were 
formed by cleavage of the protoplasm in the typical sporangial 
method of spore-formation — see Harper ( 11 ) — is, as already 
pointed out, merely an optical effect. But apart from Went’s 
description his figures are sufficient to confirm the statements 
just made. His Figures 17 and 18 are practically identical 
with Figures 1 3, a , b , of this paper. 
Perhaps, however, the most convincing proof is that which 
may be deduced from his statement that in some of the 
‘ sporangia’ he found spores in only one region, the remainder 
consisting of bands of protoplasm and vacuoles. Here it is 
clear that he had to deal with perithecia, in which the asci 
were not distributed throughout, but were grouped in one 
portion. The nature of the protoplasmic bands and vacuoles 
is obvious from the preceding. 
Thus we find that Went’s account is based on a misinter- 
pretation of the observed facts, and that M. purpureus in all 
probability is a true Ascomycete with a perithecial formation 
similar to that of the ‘Samsu’ fungus. 
Owing to the suggested identity between M. purpureus and 
the ‘Beni-koji’ fungus it is necessary to examine Uyeda’s 
results to see if any fresh evidence is forthcoming in favour 
of the 1 sporangium ’ view. It has been seen that this ob- 
server’s results agreed entirely with those of Went. He gives, 
however, two figures (Figs. 9 and 10) which may be taken as 
representing stages not figured by Went, his insufficient 
description rendering it uncertain if they merely reproduce 
