Page:Natural History Review (1861).djvu/21

Rh de Bary makes no mention of this important element in the organisation of the Myxomycetes. He might have seen in it a farther analogy between the latter and the testaceous Rhizopods, such as the Difflugiæ and Polythalamia, to which he compares them."

There is this further peculiarity in the Myxogastres, and by which they are (as far as present observations have gone) distinguished from all other Fungi, viz., that their spores in germinating produce bodies of a similar nature to the zoospores of Algæ. This fact, however, does not aid the argument in favour of their being animals, as it would be equally applicable to prove the animal nature of Zoospores in general, and would thus prove too much.

In the chapter devoted to the habitats of Fungi, Mr. Berkeley refers to the curious moulds which are found upon dead fish. He says, p. 29:—

"I am not at liberty to reckon as Fungi the curious moulds which grow on dead fish, making them conspicuous, as they float on the surface of the water, by the foggy halo which surrounds them. These productions differ so essentially in their mode of reproduction from Fungi in general, that at present it would be rash to speak too positively about them; but, inasmuch as their peculiar characters seem to depend entirely upon the degree of moisture to which they are exposed, there is some reason to hesitate, and to wait for further information. I have no doubt that the mould which is so common on flies in autumn, oozing out, as it were, between their abdominal rings, is a mere condition of one of these anomalous productions."

And, again, at p. 53:—

"If those moulds which infect fish or aquatic vegetables, as Leptomitus, Saprolegnia, &c., when immersed in water, be truly Fungi, we should have a more perfect type of impregnation than is presented by the supposed Antheridia—at least, one more nearly resembling that in animals; but we are not at liberty to assume their affinity to Fungi, and for the present they must be left amongst the Algæ, to which they approximate closely as regards their reproductive organs."

From these extracts we infer that Mr. Berkeley is unwilling to resign Saprolegnia and its allies to the algologists, and that he entertains some hope of their being reclaimed for the Fungi. And yet, if Pringsheim's observations are correct, it is difficult to see how these productions can be looked upon otherwise than as Algæ. The process of impregnation, which has been traced with great accuracy, corresponds in its phases so exactly with that occurring in undoubted algæ, such as Vaucheria, Sphæroplea, and Coleochæte, that the nature of the Saprolegnieæ seems hardly any longer doubtful. De Bary's observations, although confessedly not so complete as those of Pringsheim, tend, as far