202 Barker . — The Morphology and Development of 
Went and Uyeda, however, have seen and described it ; 
and, although the former pointed out its similarity to the 
antheridium of certain Ascomycetes, he failed to discover the 
fusion between it and the ascogonium, and suggested instead 
that it might be a rudimentary organ, the vestige of another 
sporangium. Both considered that in the present case it 
served as nothing more than the primary investing hypha. 
It seems likely that these observers have overlooked the 
fusion. It has been seen that the fusion is almost invisible at 
the time of its occurrence even under the highest powers of 
magnification, except in rare instances. At the time when 
it becomes visible, i. e. when the central cell has become much 
enlarged and the investing hyphae formed, they seem to 
have lost sight of the structure. In fact, Went stated that 
it was hidden by the other hyphae. These reasons, together 
with the significance of its constant occurrence, its time of 
formation, and its position, warrant us in regarding it as 
a true antheridial branch, and in believing that, apart from 
a few possible exceptional cases, in which the ascogonium 
may develop further parthengentially, fusion takes place 
between it and the latter organ. There can be no doubt 
in view of Went’s discussion of its significance that this author 
would have regarded it as an antheridium, had he observed 
the fusion. 
A minor point of interest is that which concerns the 
division of the ascogonium after fertilization. Both Went 
and Uyeda found that it became divided into three cells — 
the terminal cell, the ‘ sporangium/ and the pedicel. From 
the latter the investing hyphae arose. In the ‘ Samsu ’ fungus, 
on the other hand, only two cells are formed — the terminal 
cell, which includes the place of fusion, and the central cell, 
corresponding to the ‘ sporangium.’ The investing hyphae 
arise from the region of the present hypha immediately below 
the latter. 
From the figures of these authors I have no reason to 
suppose that their account of the origin of the pedicel is not 
generally correct. Its size and position certainly appear to 
