On a new species of urophlyctis producing galls on Lotus corniculatus Linn

Studies in the Chytridiales VI. the Occurrence and Life History of a New Species of Cladochytrium in Cells of Eriocaulon septangulare

“…Without any consideration of Fischer's classification, Schroter (1897) in Engler and Prantl's Naturlichen Pftanzenfamilien retains Physoderma and Cladoch.ytrium in the family Cladochytriaceae and refers Urophlyctis to his new family Oochytriaceae, which thus takes the place of his former Zygochytriaceae. Schroter's claim of sexuality in Urophlyctis was strongly supported by Magnus (1897-1901-1902) but subsequent cytological studies (Jones andDrechsler, 1921, andBartlett, 1926) have denied the presence of sexual fusion in the formation of the resting spores.…”

“…), or "collecting cells" (Bartlett), constitute one of the controversial structural features of the Cladochytriaceae. Previous and subsequent workers, Wallroth (1833), De Bary (1864), Schroeter (1889), Tisdale (1919), Jones and Drechsler (1920), Bartlett (1926), etc., have figured and described them for Physoderma and Urophlyetis. Previous and subsequent workers, Wallroth (1833), De Bary (1864), Schroeter (1889), Tisdale (1919), Jones and Drechsler (1920), Bartlett (1926), etc., have figured and described them for Physoderma and Urophlyetis.…”

“…These cells were first figured and described for the genus Cladoehytrium by Nowakowski in 1877. Previous and subsequent workers, Wallroth (1833), De Bary (1864), Schroeter (1889), Tisdale (1919), Jones and Drechsler (1920), Bartlett (1926), etc., have figured and described them for Physoderma and Urophlyetis. Since they usually occur in pairs in many species and are frequently attached directly to the resting spores Schroter (1882-1889) regarded them as gametes whose contents fused, and hence he established the genus Urophylctis of the family Zygochytriaceae to include all species whose resting spores are formed by the fusion of two such similar cells.…”

“…Magnus (1901), Bartlett (1926), Caumann (1929), and Caumann and Dodge (1928), on the other hand, do not attach particular significance to the presence or absence of the zoosporangium as a basis of classification and maintain that there is a marked morphological difference in the shape of the resting spores, Physoderma having spherical or ellipsoidal spores while those of Urophlyctis are flattened on one side or hemispherical. While this view is supported in a general way by the drawings of resting spores in the literature, it is not safe to make too sharp and fast lines of separation on this basis, because the shape of the spores doubtless varies greatly in different species of the same genus.…”