136 
tlie whole of Dr. Fischer’s manuscript being in hand, the publisher has 
wisely concluded to begin publication at once. The lamented DeBary 
was to have written this volume, and it is a matter for congratulation 
that his mantle has fallen upon a competent successor. 
In Winter’s system (Pilze I, p. 32) the Phycomycetes are divided into 
two classes, Zygomycetes and Oomycetes. The position of the Chytri¬ 
diaceae remains doubtful and the Entomophtlioreae, now known to 
belong to Zygomycetes, are classed under Basidiomycetes. Since the 
appearance of this first volume so much new light has been thrown on 
the relationships of fungi that no excuse is necessary for departure from 
the old views, but some of the changes, e. g ., those under Peronosporinae, 
will undoubtedly lead to criticism. 
The name Phycomycetes, i. e., alga-fungi, indicates the many-sided 
relationships of the group with certain algae, e. g ., Siplioneae (Vauclie- 
ria, etc.), not only in the possession of a nonseptate vegetative body, 
sexual organs, and swarm spores, but also in the aquatic life of many 
sorts. The nonseptate character of the mycelium is especially con¬ 
stant, so that the name Sqiliomyces, i. e., tube fungi, might properly be 
used for the whole group, corresponding to the term Siphopliyces ap¬ 
plied to the parallel group of algae. Cohn united under the name 
Siphomycetes the three orders Peronosporeae, Saprolegnieae, and Chy- 
tridiaceae and set up the Zygomycetes (Mucorineae, etc.) as a group 
parallel to the Zygophyceae (Conjugateae). In Cohn’s system the Phy¬ 
comycetes were therefore split into two groups, Zygomycetes and 
Siphomycetes. Sorokin uses the term Siphomycetes as synonymous 
with Phycomycetes, in the sense already explained, and although the 
author thinks Siphomycetes a better name for the group than Phycomy¬ 
cetes he considerately refrains from disturbing the well-established usage. 
However, it is not simply a question of names, but one of widely dif¬ 
fering views as to relationships. De Bary in his Comparative Morphol¬ 
ogy and Biology puts Peronosporeae (Ancylisteae and Monoblepharis 
included), Saprolegnieae, Mucorineae, and Entomophtlioreae at the 
beginning of his great Ascomycetous series; but he treats the Cliytri- 
diaceae as a group of doubtful position in the system, although recogniz¬ 
ing their dependence on these Phycomycetes. Indeed, the disposition 
of the Chytridiaceae is the weak point in all previous classifications. So 
far, all mycologists agree that Peronosporeae, Saprolegneae, Mucorineae, 
and Entomophtlioreae are genuine Phycomycetes, but some do not re¬ 
gard the Chytridiaceae as a natural group, e. g ., Zopf would separate the 
Synchitreae from the Eu-mycetes on account of their plasmodial vegeta¬ 
tive body, and would consider them as a special group related to 
Myxomycetes. In Saccardo’s Sylloge (Vol. vn), the Chytridiaceae are 
indeed included within the customary limits of the Phycomycetes, but 
are looked upon as degenerated forms. Brefeld in Heft viii regards 
the Chytridiaceae as degenerate Phycomycetes in which the vegetative 
body is reduced more and more until it disappears entirely in the for- 
