106 
THE GARDENING WORLD.. 
October 17, 1885. 
One more instance and I have done with the Potato. 
After Professor Do Bary had made his premature 
attack on my views regarding the resting-spores of the 
Potato fungus, every little skirmisher thought he could 
safely discharge an arrow at me ill the same direction ; 
whenever I published anything about an oospore, some¬ 
one, big or little (generally little) would be sure to start 
up and deny what I had said. 
A Fossil Peronospora. 
Soon after my notes on Peronospora infestans were 
published, I described what I modestly took to be a 
fossil Peronospora from the Coal Measures, a fungus with 
septate threads and possibly zoospores. Someone ap¬ 
pears to have incited Professor W. C. Williamson, 
F. R. S., to cast doubts on some of my interpretations. 
The Professor’s paper “Organization oi the Fossil plants 
of the Coal Measures” was published in the Philo¬ 
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society for 1331. 
The author complains that I have shown what he terms 
“septoe ” (sic), near my “supposed oogonia.” No 
vegetable bodies fall more readily from their supports 
than do oogonia from their supporting threads ; the 
preparation I worked from was full of free oogonia. The 
professor commenting on these free bodies, writes:— 
“It was long doubtful whether or not these belonged 
to the supposed Peronosporites, but I have no doubt as 
to their doing so.” I should like then to ask him 
how he explains the fact of so many oogonia falling 
from their supports if they were without what he terms 
“sept®.” Oogonia always drop off at a septum, and 
the base of the septum necessarily forms part of the 
circumference of every free oogonium. The professor 
says, “that the plant is a fungus, seems probable; 
equally so that its relations are with the 1 Saprolegnie®. ” 
What a nice distinction ! 1 wonder whether it would 
surprise Professor Williamson to learn that Peronospora 
is a close relation of the Saphrolegnie®. But the worst 
mistake the professor makes, is, when he says that I 
described “oogonia containing oospores ” ; oospores are 
not mentioned in my paper, what I really described 
were “ oogonia containing zoospores.” All botanists 
know that between an oospore and a zoospore there is 
an enormous gulf. The gentleman who led Professor 
Williamson on to making critical remarks about my 
Peronosporites ought to have revised the proof-sheets ; 
as it is, the Royal Society article contains ridiculous 
misprints and mare’s-nests. 
It is a curious fact in reference to this solicified 
Peronospora, that a writer on the longevity of seeds 
and spores wrote to one of the horticultural papers to 
say, “ that possibly the antediluvian spores described 
by me, might wake up and grow if placed in water. ’’ 
This gentleman had but a vague idea of the age of the 
plants of the Coal Measures, to say nothing of their 
fossil condition. My original drawings of this fossil 
plant are in the Museum of Geology, Jermyn Street. 
Myxomycetous Fungi. 
Professor De Bary discovered an undoubted mare’s- 
nest when he once taught that Myxomycetous fungi 
w T ere animals rather than plants. We have all read 
the passage of arms between Mr. W. Saville Kent and 
Dr. M. C. Cooke on this subject. Professor E. Pay 
Laukester, however, thinks these organisms are really 
animals, for he tells us in Nature, vol. xxxii, 1385, p. 
145, “the Mycetozoa” (as he calls them) “ should in 
the opinion of the present writer (Professor Laukester) 
be included in the animal kingdom.” He also adds 
‘ ‘ that the Mycetozoa are to be considered as animals 
Tather than as plants is the opinion of no less an 
authority than the botanist, De Bary, who has done 
more than any other observer to elucidate their life 
history and structure.” This remark shows that 
Professor Laukester is very badly acquainted with his 
subject, aud Professor De Bary himself would be the 
first to tell him so. The magnificent and elaborate 
illustrated quarto monograph of Dr. Joseph Rostafinski 
is apparently unknown to Professor Laukester. Dr. 
Cooke has advanced good reasons for considering the 
Myxomycetes to be fungi, but I may venture to mention 
two other reasons. Can anyone mention a true animal 
with spiral vessels like some of the Myxomycetes, or an 
animal arising from tubular mycelium like Lycogala, 
one of the Myxomycetes ? I think an animal springing 
from tubular mycelium would be a novelty worthy of 
the Lord Mayor’s Museum. No doubt Professor Boulger 
was quite right when he said he told the members of 
this club that the Myxomycetes approached fungi in 
one direction and animals in another ; many of the 
Myxomycetes apparently occupy an intermediate posi¬ 
tion between the animal and vegetable kingdom. 
Corn Mildew. 
We all know -what corn mildew is, and Barberry 
blight; I believe the supposed connexion of the two to 
be a colossal mare’s-nest. The nest is so large, however, 
that a large volume would not be big enough to describe 
it in all its bearings. I have given it a good many 
cuts elsewhere, so will pass it by on the present occasion, 
and only refer to a rather large mare’s-nest, discovered 
by Dr. Alfred Carpenter, who wrote to the Times, in 
1872, to say he had discovered that mildew (Puccinia 
graminis), smut (Ustilago carbo), and bunt (Tilletia 
caries) were all the same thing, and were “produced 
by various stages in the development of the Puccinia 
graminis.” Another writer, Doctor (not Lord) Salisbury, 
maintains that the spores of corn mildew will grow on 
the human subject, and produce a disease known as 
“camp measles.” If this be true, who can wonder at 
their growing on a Barberry bush, and producing 
Barberry blight! 
One more mare’s-nest about corn mildew. In a pro¬ 
longed trial before the Lord Chief Justice, at the High 
Court of Justice, in April, 1877, an effort was made to 
recover £1,626 damages from a firm in the Manchester 
cotton trade for supplying mildewed goods. It was 
stated in sworn evidence that species of corn mildew 
(Puccinia graminis) and bunt (Tilletia caries) sometimes 
grow on cotton goods and cause black stains. One 
witness, an analytical chemist, in describing a fungus, 
said it “had no name.” This was exceedingly curious, 
for nearly every contemptible fungus has a name—some 
have twenty or more. A still stranger fact was, how¬ 
ever, mentioned by this learned botanical chemist, for 
he swore that the fungus ‘ 1 had no form from which to 
make a drawing.” Fancy, a fungus without a form ! 
There is no wonder that the professors had a difficulty 
in giving it a suitable name. 
Some people will believe anything about corn mildew 
and the smut of corn, provided it is unreasonable 
enough. Sometimes “smut” is said to kill people. 
Here is an instance of death by “smut,” copied as 
an “awful example” from another paper into the 
Agricultural Gazette for February 18, 1871:—“At 
Burley-on-the-Hill, about a fortnight ago, as a labourer 
was employed in threshing some corn, he became 
poisoned. It appears that he was employed in 
assisting, along with other men, in threshing Barley, 
which contained a quantity of what is known as smutty 
Barley. The dust from the same got down his throat 
and poisoned him. He went home and lay ill for eleven 
or twelve days, when death put an end to his existence 
on Saturday last. ” In this wonderful case it will be 
observed that the evidence is precisely similar with that 
advanced for connecting the fungus of corn mildew with 
Barberry blight. When the spores of corn mildew are 
placed on Barberry leaves, and rest there for “ eleven or 
twelve days,” the Barberry leaves perish from the effects 
of JEcidium berberidis. The ideas based on the death 
of the farm labourer and the blight ol Barberry bushes 
are, in my opinion, barefaced mare’s-nests. 
Hetercecism in Parasitic Fungi. 
During the last year or two botanists have heard a 
great deal about what has been termed heteroecism in 
parasitic fungi. By heteroecism is meant that certain 
fungi do not go through all their phases of life on one 
host plant, but like many parasites belonging to ani¬ 
mals (as tape worms) the larva lives in one animal and 
the perfect condition of the parasite in another. 
As this heteroecism is a common, well-known, and 
proven fact in the life history of some parasitic 
animals, it possibly also occurs in the vegetable 
kingdom amongst fungoid parasites. I acknowledge 
that it is more than possible, it is probable, but 
being probable I maintain that on that very ac¬ 
count we should be all the more cautious before 
jumping to conclusions ; great and fatal blunders are 
commonly made over things that are “ probable.” 
The common mode of reasoning amongst some bio¬ 
logical botanists is as follows : The idea is p>ossihly 
true, therefore it is probably true, therefore it must be 
true, therefore it is true. Whilst acknowledging that 
hetercecism in certain fungi is possible and in others 
probable, I yet give it as my opinion that in the ma¬ 
jority of published instances, hetercecism remains 
unproven, and the examples given in our text books 
are mere mare’s-nests. De Bary’s heteroecism in Corn 
Mildew is, as I think, a mare’s-nest. The discovery 
attributed to De Bary, before the British Association, 
in reference to heteroecism in the potato fungus, is a 
phenomenal mare’s-nest. The heteroecism discovered 
by Waldheim in the bunt of com is a mare’s-nest. 
The heteroecism discovered by the same writer in the 
smut of corn is also a mare’s nest. It happens ia some 
so-called lietercecismal fungi that "there are growths 
called spermogonia, or male organisms ; of late these 
spermagonia have become highly inconvenient to hete- 
roecismalists, for some botanists go so far as to say they 
are not male organs at all. Spermogonia are great 
bug-bears to hetercecismalists, the latter gentlemen 
don’t like them. Prof. Max Cornu has recently, in an 
extremity of mental anguish, proposed that the mean¬ 
ing of the word “spermogonia ” should be altered. How 
rich and racy this is, advanced botanists cannot possi¬ 
bly make mistakes, their supernatural knowledge must 
never be under a cloud. In future, “black ” may mean 
“white,” “fat” mean “thin,” “short” mean “tall,” 
a “large number” mean a “small number,” and so 
on, but philologists always object to alterations of this 
c ' a, ’ s ' ( To be continued). 
-- 
FRUITS, FLOWERS & VEGETABLES. 
Microloma or Wax Climber. —I am glad to 
inform your South African correspondent, Mr. James 
Hall, that the beautiful Microloma you figured last 
week, is at present in flower with me. Mr. Hall has 
done well to call attention to it. I am interested 
to know whether it has been flowered elsewhere in 
Britain.— James Wilson, fan., Florist, St. Andrews, 
N.B. 
Colchicum autumnale. —Well established 
clunqjs of these have been singularly effective during 
the autumn. Some years ago the roots were planted 
under an east wall in a good deep loam, and here they 
have become quite at home and flower freely, throwing 
up their huge naked flowers in September and later. 
I have the common rose-flowered and the white-flowered 
types, and the double rose and double white forms. 
Add to these the large pale rose-coloured form, known 
as maximus, and the fine single variety known as 
purpureum striatum, aud a most useful group is fur¬ 
nished. Colchicums should be so planted as that they 
need not be disturbed, then they will flourish and do 
good floral service in their own good time. — R. D. 
Strawberries in October. —At Perry Hall, 
near Birmingham, there is now to be seen a fine crop 
of ripe Strawberries. The variety is Yicomtesse Heri- 
eart de Tliury. The plants now bearing were forced 
early in the season, after which they were planted out, 
and again lifted, potted, and placed on a shelf, where 
they are now fruiting freely, aud bearing good fruit too, 
as this variety has done here for the last few years. Air. 
George Mitchison is proud of his success, and well he 
may be, for to have good fruit fit for the table in 
October and November is a luxury that many would 
like to enjoy.— A. 0. 
Duke of Buccleuch G-rape. —I am not going 
to condemn this noble looking grape, as I believe when 
its peculiarities become better known it will find more 
favour with grape growers than it has done yet. But 
I doubt very much if it will ever be grown to any great 
extent if it requires such special treatment as “J.” 
recommends at p. S4, except in places where a house 
can be devoted to it, and those places are few and far 
between. It is a grape that will not keep very long, 
therefore, one or two vines of it would be enough, 
except iu places where grapes are grown for market. 
I believe when first sent out it was said to be free to 
grow and fruit, I have found it to be a strong grower, 
but certainly not free to fruit. I think it should be 
grafted on a free stock, such as the Hamburgh, and 
treated strictly on the young rod system, then shyness of 
fruiting would be overcome. But I certainly differ with 
“ J.”wlreu he says that no other grape can approach it 
for quality, surely such grapes as the Hamburghs, 
Frontignans, and Muscats alone are a long way ahead 
of it in every respect. That it is refreshing and luscious 
I agree ; but juicy—well—I always think it rather 
watery, and badly-grown samples of it are not much 
better than a bag of sweet water. — W. C. 
Dickson, Brown, and Tait’s Eclipse Cau¬ 
liflower. —This, in my opinion, is truly a grand 
cauliflower in every respect. Its heads are solid and as 
