1030 Butler .— On Allomyces , # Aquatic Fungus . 
taceae than to any other family. Is there any hint in the Fungus above 
described of affinity with this isolated genus? I think so. The resting 
spore, formed free within a cell of the mycelium, is something new amongst 
the Oomycetes, so much so that the possibility of there being a fertilization 
by antherozoids, as in Monoblepharis , requires to be carefully considered. 
I do not think that anything of the sort can occur. These bodies were 
formed in great abundance in the cultures, so that fertilization even by 
small motile sperms was unlikely to have been overlooked. Besides, all 
the sporangia give rise to zoospores of uniform type, and nothing was seen 
suggesting antheridia and sperms. In Blastocladia the same idea was 
present to Thaxter, but he failed to find anything in favour of it. Yet the 
resting spore of Blastocladia is certainly of the same type as that above 
described. What then are these bodies, so unlike any asexual spore known 
in the Oomycetes? I think they are parthenogenetic oospores, derived 
from a form resembling Monoblepharis. 
In Monoblepharis , oospores sometimes develop without fecundation. 
Lagerheim figures such cases (’00, Figs. 55, 56), the spore remaining within 
the oogonium, though the fertilized oospores of the same' species (M. 
brachyandra ) emerge after copulation. In other species (e. g. M . insignis , 
Thaxter) the fertilized oospore remains within the oogonium. A considera¬ 
tion of the published figures of these species will I think show that there is 
nothing which militates against the homology here suggested. Certainly 
it is difficult to think of any other spore form in the Phycomycetes with 
which to compare these bodies. In other respects, Monoblepharis has strong 
points of resemblance to the three aberrant genera of the Leptomitaceae 
whose affinities have been referred to above. Like them its zoospore is, 
at least sometimes, i-ciliate; its very variability in this respect recalls 
Thaxter’s difficulty with the cilia of Blastocladia and Gonapodya ; all other 
Oomycetes have 2-ciliate zoospores. Like them its membrane is devoid 
of cellulose; all other Oomycetes have cellulose walls. Like Allomyces its 
sporangia are basipetally formed, and its axis is often markedly sympodial 
(cf. Lagerheim, ’ 00 , Taf. ii, Fig. 16). The peculiar alveolate protoplasm 
of the vegetative hyphae or Monoblepharis is not marked in Gonapodya or 
Blastocladia , but is sometimes visible in the new form (Fig. 18 ). As 
further strengthening the relationship we have the imperfectly known 
Fungus, called by Lagerheim Monoblepharis regignens . This has the alveo¬ 
late protoplasm of the latter genus, but the proliferous siliqua-shaped 
sporangia of Gonapodya . It has i-ciliate zoospores, other reproductive 
organs being unknown. Whether this is a true Monoblepharis or not, it is 
a further connecting link between that genus and Gonapodya. There seems 
to be no longer any reason for assigning to Monoblepharis an isolated 
position amongst the Phycomycetes. It is connected, not very distantly, 
with a group of genera with non-cellulose walls, and these again are con- 
