Parasitism.—Some fungi, though able to live as saprophytes, occasionally enter the body of living plants, and are thus termed facultative parasites. The occasion may be a wound (e.g.Nectria,Dasyscypha, &c.), or the enfeeblement of the tissues of the host, or invigoration of the fungus, the mycelium of which then becomes strong enough to overcome the host’s resistance (Botrytis). Many fungi, however, cannot complete their life-history apart from the host-plant. Suchobligateparasites may be epiphytic (Erysipheae), the mycelium remaining on the outside and at most merely sending haustoria into the epidermal cells, or endophytic (Uredineae,Ustilagineae, &c.), when the mycelium is entirely inside the organs of the host. An epiphytic fungus is not necessarily a parasite, however, as many saprophytes (moulds, &c.) germinate and develop a loose mycelium on living leaves, but only enter and destroy the tissues after the leaf has fallen; in some cases, however, these saprophytic epiphytes can do harm by intercepting light and air from the leaf (Fumago, &c.), and such cases make it difficult to draw the line between saprophytism and parasitism. Endophytic parasites may be intracellular, when the fungus or its mycelium plunges into the cells and destroys their contents directly (Olpidium,Lagenidium,Sclerotinia, &c.), but they are far more frequently intercellular, at any rate while young, the mycelium growing in the lacunae between the cells (Peronospora,Uredineae) into which it may send short (Cystopus), or long and branched (Peronospora Calotheca) haustoria, or it extends in the middle lamella (Ustilago), or even in the solid substance of the cell-wall (Botrytis). No sharp lines can be drawn, however, since many mycelia are intercellular at first and subsequently become intracellular (Ustilagineae), and the various stages doubtless depend on the degrees of resistance which the host tissues are able to offer. Similar gradations are observed in the direct effect of the parasite on the host, which may be local (Hemileia) when the mycelium never extends far from the point of infection, or general (Phytophthora) when it runs throughout the plant. Destructive parasites rapidly ruin the whole plant-body (Pythium), whereas restrained parasites only tax the host slightly, and ill effects may not be visible for a long time, or only when the fungus is epidemic (Rhytisma). A parasite may be restricted during a long incubation-period, however, and rampant and destructive later (Ustilago). The latter fact, as well as the extraordinary fastidiousness, so to speak, of parasites in their choice of hosts or of organs for attack, point to reactions on the part of the host-plant, as well as capacities on that of the parasite, which may be partly explained in the light of what we now know regarding enzymes and chemotropism. Some parasites attack many hosts and almost any tissue or organ (Botrytis cinerea), others are restricted to one family (Cystopus Candidus) or genus (Phytophthora infestans) or even species (Pucciniastrum Padi), and it is customary to speak of root-parasites, leaf-parasites, &c., in expression of the fact that a given parasite occurs only on such organs—e.g.Dematophora necatrixon roots,Calyptospora Goeppertianaon stems,Ustilago Scabiosaein anthers,Claviceps purpureain ovaries, &c. Associated with these relations are the specializations which parasites show in regard to the age of the host. Many parasites can enter a seedling, but are unable to attack the same host when older—e.g.Pythium,Phytophthora omnivora.Chemotropism.—Taken in conjunction with Pfeffer’s beautiful discovery that certain chemicals exert a distinct attractive influence on fungus hyphae (chemotropism), and the results of Miyoshi’s experimental application of it, the phenomena of enzyme-secretion throw considerable light on the processes of infection and parasitism of fungi. Pfeffer showed that certain substances in definite concentrations cause the tips of hyphae to turn towards them; other substances, though not innutritious, repel them, as also do nutritious bodies if too highly concentrated. Marshall Ward showed that the hyphae ofBotrytispierce the cell-walls of a lily by secreting a cytase and dissolving a hole through the membrane. Miyoshi then demonstrated that ifBotrytisis sown in a lamella of gelatine, and this lamella is superposed on another similar one to which a chemotropic substance is added, the tips of the hyphae at once turn from the former and enter the latter. If a thin cellulose membrane is interposed between the lamellae, the hyphae nevertheless turn chemotropically from the one lamella to the other and pierce the cellulose membrane in the process. The hyphae will also dissolve their way through a lamella of collodion, paraffin, parchment paper, elder-pith, or even cork or the wing of a fly, to do which it must excrete very different enzymes. If the membrane is of some impermeable substance, like gold leaf, the hyphae cannot dissolve its way through, but the tip finds the most minute pore and traverses the barrier by means of it, as it does a stoma on a leaf We may hence conclude that a parasitic hyphae pierces some plants or their stomata and refuses to enter others, because in the former case there are chemotropically attractive substances present which are absent from the latter, or are there replaced by repellent poisonous or protective substances such as enzymes or antitoxins.Specialization of Parasitism.—The careful investigations of recent years have shown that in several groups of fungi we cannot be content to distinguish as units morphologically different species, but we are compelled to go deeper and analyse further the species. It has been shown especially in theUredineaeandErysiphaceaethat many forms which can hardly be distinguished morphologically, or which cannot be differentiated at all by structural characters, are not really homogeneous but consist of a number of forms which aresharply distinguishable by their infecting power. Eriksson found, for example, that the well-known speciesPuccinia graminiscould be split up into a number of forms which though morphologically similar were physiologically distinct. He found that the species really consisted of six distinct races, each having a more or less narrow range of grasses on which it can live. The six races he namedP. graminis Secalis,Tritici,Avenae,Airae,Agrostis,Poae. The first named will grow on rye and barley but not on wheat or oat. The formTriticiis the least sharply marked and will grow on wheat, barley, rye and oat but not on the other grasses. The formAvenaewill grow on oat and many grasses but not on the other three cereals mentioned. The last three forms grow only on the generaAira,AgrostisandPoarespectively. All these forms have of course their aecidium-stage on the barberry. The terms biologic forms, biological species, physiological species, physiological races, specialized forms have all been applied to these; perhaps the term biologic forms is the most satisfactory. A similar specialization has been observed by Marshall Ward in thePucciniaparasitic on species ofBromus, and by Neger, Marchal and especially Salmon in the Erysiphaceae. In the last-named family the single morphological speciesErysiphe graminisis found growing on the cereals, barley, oat, wheat, rye and a number of wild grasses (such asPoa,Bromus,Dactylis). On each of these host-plants the fungus has become specialized so that the form on barley cannot infect the other three cereals or the wild grasses and so on. Just as the uredospores and aecidiospores both show these specialized characters in the case ofPuccinia graminisso we find that both the conidia and ascospores ofE. graminisshow this phenomenon. Salmon has further shown in investigating the relation ofE. graministo various species of the genus,Bromus, that certain species may act as “bridging species,” enabling the transfer of a biologic form to a host-plant which it cannot normally infect. Thus the biologic form onB. racemosuscannot infectB. commutatus. If, however, conidia fromB. racemosusare sown onB. hordaceus, the conidia which develop on that plant are now able to infectB. commutatus; thusB. hordaceusacts as a bridging species. Salmon also found that injury of a leaf by mechanical means, by heat, by anaesthetics, &c., would affect the immunity of the plant and allow infection by conidia which was not able to enter a normal leaf. The effect of the abnormal conditions is probably to stop the production of, or weaken or destroy the protective enzymes or antitoxins, the presence of which normally confers immunity on the leaf.Symbiosis.—The remarkable case of life in common first observed in lichens, where a fungus and an alga unite to form a compound organism—the lichen—totally different from either, has now been proved to be universal in these plants, and lichens are in all cases merely algae enmeshed in the interwoven hyphae of fungi (see LICHENS). This dualism, where the one constituent (alga) furnishes carbohydrates, and the other (fungus) ensures a supply of mineral matters, shade and moisture, has been termedsymbiosis. Since then numerous other cases of symbiosis have been demonstrated. Many trees are found to have their smaller roots invaded by fungi and deformed by their action, but so far from these being injurious, experiments go to show that this mycorhiza (fungus-root) is necessary for the well-being of the tree. This is also the case with numerous other plants of moors and woodlands—e.g.Ericaceae, Pyrolaceae, Gentianaceae, Orchidaceae, ferns, &c. Recent experiments have shown that the difficulties of getting orchid seeds to germinate are due to the absence of the necessary fungus, which must be in readiness to infect the young seedling immediatelyafterit emerges from the seed. The well-known failures with rhododendrons, heaths, &c., in ordinary garden soils are also explained by the need of the fungus-infected peat for their roots. The rôle of the fungus appears to be to supply materials from the leaf-mould around, in forms which ordinary root-hairs are incapable of providing for the plant; in return the latter supports the fungus at slight expense from its abundant stores of reserve materials. Numerous other cases of symbiosis have been discovered among the fungi of fermentation, of which those betweenAspergillusand yeast in saké manufacture, and between yeasts and bacteria in kephir and in the ginger-beer plant are best worked out. For cases of symbiosis seeBacteriology.Authorities.—General: Engler and Prantl,Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, i. Teil (1892 onwards); Zopf,Die Pilze(Breslau, 1890); De Bary,Comparative Morphology of Fungi, &c. (Oxford, 1887); von Tafel,Vergleichende Morphologie der Pilze(Jena, 1892); Brefeld,Unters. aus dem Gesamtgebiete der Mykologie, Heft i. 13 (1872-1905); Lotsy,Vorträge über botanische Stammesgeschichte(Jena, 1907).Distribution, &c.: Cooke,Introduction to the Study of Fungi(London, 1895); Felix inZeitschr. d. deutsch. geologisch. Gesellsch.(1894-1896); Staub,Sitzungsber. d. bot. Sec. d. Kgl. ungarischen naturwiss. Gesellsch. zu Budapest(1897).Anatomy, &c.: Bommer, “Sclerotes et cordons mycéliens,”Mém. de l’Acad. Roy. de Belg.(1894); Mangin, “Observ. sur la membrane des mucorinées,”Journ. de Bot.(1899); Zimmermann,Die Morph. und Physiologie des Pflanzenzellkernes(Jena, 1896); Wisselingh, “Microchem. Unters. über die Zellwände d. Fungi,”Pringsh. Jahrb.B. 31, p. 619 (1898); Istvanffvi, “Unters. über die phys. Anat. der Pilze,”Prings. Jahrb.(1896).Spore Distribution: Fulton, “Dispersal of the Spores of Fungi by Insects,”Ann. Bot.(1889); Falck, “Die Sporenverbreitung bei den Basidiomyceten,”Beitr. zur Biol. d. Pflanzen, ix. (1904).Spores and Sporophores: Zopf,Die Pilze; also the works of von Tafel and Brefeld.Classification: van Tieghem,Journ. de bot.p. 77 (1893), and the works of Brefeld, Engler and Prantl, von Tafel, Saccardo and Lotsy already cited,Oomycetes: Wager, “On the Fertilization ofPeronospora parasitica,”Ann. Bot.vol. xiv. (1900); Stevens, “The Compound Oosphere ofAlbugo Bliti,”Bot. Gaz.vol. 28 (1899); “Gametogenesis and Fertilization inAlbugo,”ibid. vol. 32 (1901); Miyake, “The Fertilization ofPythium de Baryanum,”Ann. of Bot.vol. xv. (1901); Trow, “On Fertilization in the Saprolegnieae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. xviii. (1904); Thaxter, “New and Peculiar Aquatic Fungi,”Bot. Gaz.vol. 20 (1895); Lagerheim, “Unters. über die Monoblepharideae,”Bih. Svenska Vet. Acad. Handlingar, 25. Afd. iii. (1900); Woronin, “Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Monoblepharideen,”Mém. de l’Acad. Imp. d. Sc. de St-Pétersbourg, 8 sér. vol. 16 (1902).Zygomycetes: Harper, “Cell-division in Sporangia and Asci,”Ann. Bot.vol. xiii. (1899); Klebs,Die Bedingungen der Fortpflanzung, &c. (Jena, 1896), and “Zur Physiologie der Fortpflanzung”Prings. Jahr.(1898 and 1899), “ÜberSporodinia grandis,”Bot. Zeit.(1902); Falck, “Die Bedingungen der Zygotenbildung bei Sporodinia grandis,” Cohn’s Beitr. z. Biol. d. Pflanzen, Bd. 8 (1902); Gruber “Verhalten der Zellkerne in den Zygosporen vonSporodinia grandis,”Ber. d. deutschen bot. Ges.Bd. 19 (1901); Blakeslee, “Sexual Reproduction in the Mucorineae,”Proc. Am. Acad.(1904); “Zygospore germination in the Mucorineae,”Annales mycologici(1906).Ustilagineae: Plowright,British Uredineae and Ustilagineae(London, 1889); Massee,British Fungi(Phycomycetes and Ustilagineae) (London, 1891); Brefeld,Unters. aus dem Gesamtgeb. der Mykol.Hefte xi. and xii.; and Falck, “Die Bluteninfektion bei den Brandpilzen,” ibid. Heft xiii. 1905; Dangeard, “La Reproduction sexuelle des Ustilaginées,” C.R., Oct. 9, 1893; Maire, “Recherches cytologiques et taxonomiques sur les Basidiomyceten,”Annexé au Bull. de la Soc. Mycol. de France(1902).Saccharomycetaceae: Jorgensen,The Micro-organisms of Fermentation(1899); Barker,Ann. of Bot.vol. xiv. (1901); “On Spore-formation among the Saccharomycetes,”Journ. of the Fed. Institute of Brewing, vol. 8 (1902); Guillermond,Recherches cytologiques sur lés levures(Paris, 1902); Hansen,Centralbl. f. Bakt. u. Parasitenp.Abt. ii. Bd. 12 (1904).Exoascaceae: Giesenhagen, “Taphrina, Exoascus, Magnusiella” (complete literature given),Bot. Zeit.Bd. 7 (1901).Erysiphaceae: Harper, “Die Entwicklung des Perithecium beiSphaerotheca castagnei,”Ber. d. deut bot Ges.(1896); “Sexual Reproduction and the Organization of the Nucleus in certain Mildews,”Publ. Carnegie Institution(Washington, 1906); Blackman & Fraser, “Fertilization inSphaerotheca,”Ann. of Bot.(1905).Perisporiaceae: Brefeld,Untersuchungen aus dem Gesamtgeb. der Mykol.Heft 10 (1891); Fraser and Chamber,Annales mycologici(1907).Discomycetes: Harper, “Über das Verhalten der Kerne bei Ascomyceten,”Jahr. f. wiss. Bot.Bd. 29 (1890); “Sexual Reproduction inPyronema confluens,”Ann. of Bot.14 (1900); Claussen, “Zur Entw. der Ascomyceten,” Boudiera, Bot. Zeit. Bd. 63 (1905); Dangeard, “Sur lePyronema confluens,”Le Botaniste, 9 série (1903) (and numerous papers in same journal earlier and later); Ramlow, “Zur Entwick. vonThelebolus stercoren,”Bot. Zeit.(1906); Woronin, “Über die Sclerotienkrankheit der Vaccineen Beeren,”Mem. de l’Acad. Imp. des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, 7 série, 36 (1888); Dittrich, “Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Helvellineen,” Cohn’sBeitr. z. Biol. d. Pflanzen(1892).Pyrenomycetes: Fisch, “Beitr. z. Entwickelungsgeschichte einiger Ascomyceten,”Bot. Zeit.(1882); Frank, “Über einige neue u. weniger bekannte Pflanzkrankh.,”Landw. Jahrb.Bd. 12 (1883); Ward, “Onygena equina, a horn-destroying fungus,”Phil. Trans., vol. 191 (1899); Dawson, “On the Biology of Poroniapunctata,” Ann. of Bot. 14 (1900).Tuberineae: Buchholtz, “Zur Morphologie u. Systematik der Fungi hypogaei,”Ann. Mycol.Bd. 1 (1903); Fischer in Engler and Prantl,Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien(1896).Laboulbeniineae: Thaxter, “Monograph of the Laboulbeniaceae,”Mem. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, vol. 12 (1895).Uredineae: Eriksson and Henning,Die Getreideroste(Stockholm, 1896); Eriksson,Botan. Gaz.vol. 25 (1896); “On the Vegetative Life of some Uredineae,” Ann. of Bot. (1905); Klebahn,Die wirtwechselnden Rostpilze(Berlin, 1904); Sapin-Trouffy, “Recherches histologiques sur la famille des Urédinées,”Le Botaniste(1896-1897); Blackman, “On the Fertilization, Alternation of Generations and General Cytology of the Uredineae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 18 (1904); Blackman and Fraser, “Further Studies on the Sexuality of Uredineae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 20 (1906); Christman, “Sexual Reproduction of Rusts,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 20 (1906); Ward, “The Brooms and their Rust Fungus,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 15 (1901).Basidiomycetes: Dangeard, “La Reprod. sexuelle des Basidiomycètes,”Le Botaniste(1894 and 1900); Maire, “Recherches cytologiques et taxonomiques sur les Basidiomycètes,”Annexe du Bull. de la Soc. Mycol. de France(1902); Möller, “Protobasidiomyceten,”Schimper’s Mitt. aus den Tropen, Heft 8 (Jena, 1895); Nichols, “The Nature and Origin of the Binucleated Cells in certain Basidiomycetes,”Trans. Wisconsin Acad. of Sciences, vol. 15 (1905); Wager, “The Sexuality of the Fungi,”Ann. of Bot.13 (1899); Woronin, “Exobasidium Vaccinii,”Verh. Naturf. Ges. zu Freiburg, Bd. 4 (1867).Fermentation: Buchner, “Gährung ohne Hefezellen,”Bot. Zeit.Bd. 18 (1898); Albert,Cent. f. Bakt.Bd. 17 (1901);Green,The Soluble Ferments and Fermentation(Cambridge, 1899).Parasitism: “On some Relations between Host and Parasite,”Proc. Roy. Soc. vol. 47 (1890); “A Lily Disease,”Ann. of Botany, vol. 2 (1888); Eriksson & Hennings,Die Getreideroste (vide supra); Ward, “On the Question of Predisposition and Immunity in Plants,”Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. vol. 11 (1902); alsoAnnals of Bot. vol. 16 (1902) and vol. 19 (1905); Neger, “Beitr. z. Biol. d. Erysipheen”Flora, Bde. 88 and 90 (1901-1902); Salmon, “Cultural Experiments with ‘Biologic Forms’ of the Erysiphaceae,”Phil. Trans. (1904); “On Erysiphe graminis and its adaptative parasitism within the genus,Bromus,”Ann. Mycol. vol. 11 (1904), alsoAnn. of Bot. vol. 19 (1905).Symbiosis: Ward, “The Ginger-Beer Plant,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (1892); “Symbiosis,”Ann. of Bot. 13 (1899); Shalk, “Der Sinn der Mykorrhizenbildung,”Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. Bd. 34 (1900); Bernard, “On some Different Cases of Germination,”Gardener’s Chronicle(1900); Pierce,Publ. Univ. California(1900).
Parasitism.—Some fungi, though able to live as saprophytes, occasionally enter the body of living plants, and are thus termed facultative parasites. The occasion may be a wound (e.g.Nectria,Dasyscypha, &c.), or the enfeeblement of the tissues of the host, or invigoration of the fungus, the mycelium of which then becomes strong enough to overcome the host’s resistance (Botrytis). Many fungi, however, cannot complete their life-history apart from the host-plant. Suchobligateparasites may be epiphytic (Erysipheae), the mycelium remaining on the outside and at most merely sending haustoria into the epidermal cells, or endophytic (Uredineae,Ustilagineae, &c.), when the mycelium is entirely inside the organs of the host. An epiphytic fungus is not necessarily a parasite, however, as many saprophytes (moulds, &c.) germinate and develop a loose mycelium on living leaves, but only enter and destroy the tissues after the leaf has fallen; in some cases, however, these saprophytic epiphytes can do harm by intercepting light and air from the leaf (Fumago, &c.), and such cases make it difficult to draw the line between saprophytism and parasitism. Endophytic parasites may be intracellular, when the fungus or its mycelium plunges into the cells and destroys their contents directly (Olpidium,Lagenidium,Sclerotinia, &c.), but they are far more frequently intercellular, at any rate while young, the mycelium growing in the lacunae between the cells (Peronospora,Uredineae) into which it may send short (Cystopus), or long and branched (Peronospora Calotheca) haustoria, or it extends in the middle lamella (Ustilago), or even in the solid substance of the cell-wall (Botrytis). No sharp lines can be drawn, however, since many mycelia are intercellular at first and subsequently become intracellular (Ustilagineae), and the various stages doubtless depend on the degrees of resistance which the host tissues are able to offer. Similar gradations are observed in the direct effect of the parasite on the host, which may be local (Hemileia) when the mycelium never extends far from the point of infection, or general (Phytophthora) when it runs throughout the plant. Destructive parasites rapidly ruin the whole plant-body (Pythium), whereas restrained parasites only tax the host slightly, and ill effects may not be visible for a long time, or only when the fungus is epidemic (Rhytisma). A parasite may be restricted during a long incubation-period, however, and rampant and destructive later (Ustilago). The latter fact, as well as the extraordinary fastidiousness, so to speak, of parasites in their choice of hosts or of organs for attack, point to reactions on the part of the host-plant, as well as capacities on that of the parasite, which may be partly explained in the light of what we now know regarding enzymes and chemotropism. Some parasites attack many hosts and almost any tissue or organ (Botrytis cinerea), others are restricted to one family (Cystopus Candidus) or genus (Phytophthora infestans) or even species (Pucciniastrum Padi), and it is customary to speak of root-parasites, leaf-parasites, &c., in expression of the fact that a given parasite occurs only on such organs—e.g.Dematophora necatrixon roots,Calyptospora Goeppertianaon stems,Ustilago Scabiosaein anthers,Claviceps purpureain ovaries, &c. Associated with these relations are the specializations which parasites show in regard to the age of the host. Many parasites can enter a seedling, but are unable to attack the same host when older—e.g.Pythium,Phytophthora omnivora.
Chemotropism.—Taken in conjunction with Pfeffer’s beautiful discovery that certain chemicals exert a distinct attractive influence on fungus hyphae (chemotropism), and the results of Miyoshi’s experimental application of it, the phenomena of enzyme-secretion throw considerable light on the processes of infection and parasitism of fungi. Pfeffer showed that certain substances in definite concentrations cause the tips of hyphae to turn towards them; other substances, though not innutritious, repel them, as also do nutritious bodies if too highly concentrated. Marshall Ward showed that the hyphae ofBotrytispierce the cell-walls of a lily by secreting a cytase and dissolving a hole through the membrane. Miyoshi then demonstrated that ifBotrytisis sown in a lamella of gelatine, and this lamella is superposed on another similar one to which a chemotropic substance is added, the tips of the hyphae at once turn from the former and enter the latter. If a thin cellulose membrane is interposed between the lamellae, the hyphae nevertheless turn chemotropically from the one lamella to the other and pierce the cellulose membrane in the process. The hyphae will also dissolve their way through a lamella of collodion, paraffin, parchment paper, elder-pith, or even cork or the wing of a fly, to do which it must excrete very different enzymes. If the membrane is of some impermeable substance, like gold leaf, the hyphae cannot dissolve its way through, but the tip finds the most minute pore and traverses the barrier by means of it, as it does a stoma on a leaf We may hence conclude that a parasitic hyphae pierces some plants or their stomata and refuses to enter others, because in the former case there are chemotropically attractive substances present which are absent from the latter, or are there replaced by repellent poisonous or protective substances such as enzymes or antitoxins.
Specialization of Parasitism.—The careful investigations of recent years have shown that in several groups of fungi we cannot be content to distinguish as units morphologically different species, but we are compelled to go deeper and analyse further the species. It has been shown especially in theUredineaeandErysiphaceaethat many forms which can hardly be distinguished morphologically, or which cannot be differentiated at all by structural characters, are not really homogeneous but consist of a number of forms which aresharply distinguishable by their infecting power. Eriksson found, for example, that the well-known speciesPuccinia graminiscould be split up into a number of forms which though morphologically similar were physiologically distinct. He found that the species really consisted of six distinct races, each having a more or less narrow range of grasses on which it can live. The six races he namedP. graminis Secalis,Tritici,Avenae,Airae,Agrostis,Poae. The first named will grow on rye and barley but not on wheat or oat. The formTriticiis the least sharply marked and will grow on wheat, barley, rye and oat but not on the other grasses. The formAvenaewill grow on oat and many grasses but not on the other three cereals mentioned. The last three forms grow only on the generaAira,AgrostisandPoarespectively. All these forms have of course their aecidium-stage on the barberry. The terms biologic forms, biological species, physiological species, physiological races, specialized forms have all been applied to these; perhaps the term biologic forms is the most satisfactory. A similar specialization has been observed by Marshall Ward in thePucciniaparasitic on species ofBromus, and by Neger, Marchal and especially Salmon in the Erysiphaceae. In the last-named family the single morphological speciesErysiphe graminisis found growing on the cereals, barley, oat, wheat, rye and a number of wild grasses (such asPoa,Bromus,Dactylis). On each of these host-plants the fungus has become specialized so that the form on barley cannot infect the other three cereals or the wild grasses and so on. Just as the uredospores and aecidiospores both show these specialized characters in the case ofPuccinia graminisso we find that both the conidia and ascospores ofE. graminisshow this phenomenon. Salmon has further shown in investigating the relation ofE. graministo various species of the genus,Bromus, that certain species may act as “bridging species,” enabling the transfer of a biologic form to a host-plant which it cannot normally infect. Thus the biologic form onB. racemosuscannot infectB. commutatus. If, however, conidia fromB. racemosusare sown onB. hordaceus, the conidia which develop on that plant are now able to infectB. commutatus; thusB. hordaceusacts as a bridging species. Salmon also found that injury of a leaf by mechanical means, by heat, by anaesthetics, &c., would affect the immunity of the plant and allow infection by conidia which was not able to enter a normal leaf. The effect of the abnormal conditions is probably to stop the production of, or weaken or destroy the protective enzymes or antitoxins, the presence of which normally confers immunity on the leaf.
Symbiosis.—The remarkable case of life in common first observed in lichens, where a fungus and an alga unite to form a compound organism—the lichen—totally different from either, has now been proved to be universal in these plants, and lichens are in all cases merely algae enmeshed in the interwoven hyphae of fungi (see LICHENS). This dualism, where the one constituent (alga) furnishes carbohydrates, and the other (fungus) ensures a supply of mineral matters, shade and moisture, has been termedsymbiosis. Since then numerous other cases of symbiosis have been demonstrated. Many trees are found to have their smaller roots invaded by fungi and deformed by their action, but so far from these being injurious, experiments go to show that this mycorhiza (fungus-root) is necessary for the well-being of the tree. This is also the case with numerous other plants of moors and woodlands—e.g.Ericaceae, Pyrolaceae, Gentianaceae, Orchidaceae, ferns, &c. Recent experiments have shown that the difficulties of getting orchid seeds to germinate are due to the absence of the necessary fungus, which must be in readiness to infect the young seedling immediatelyafterit emerges from the seed. The well-known failures with rhododendrons, heaths, &c., in ordinary garden soils are also explained by the need of the fungus-infected peat for their roots. The rôle of the fungus appears to be to supply materials from the leaf-mould around, in forms which ordinary root-hairs are incapable of providing for the plant; in return the latter supports the fungus at slight expense from its abundant stores of reserve materials. Numerous other cases of symbiosis have been discovered among the fungi of fermentation, of which those betweenAspergillusand yeast in saké manufacture, and between yeasts and bacteria in kephir and in the ginger-beer plant are best worked out. For cases of symbiosis seeBacteriology.
Authorities.—General: Engler and Prantl,Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien, i. Teil (1892 onwards); Zopf,Die Pilze(Breslau, 1890); De Bary,Comparative Morphology of Fungi, &c. (Oxford, 1887); von Tafel,Vergleichende Morphologie der Pilze(Jena, 1892); Brefeld,Unters. aus dem Gesamtgebiete der Mykologie, Heft i. 13 (1872-1905); Lotsy,Vorträge über botanische Stammesgeschichte(Jena, 1907).Distribution, &c.: Cooke,Introduction to the Study of Fungi(London, 1895); Felix inZeitschr. d. deutsch. geologisch. Gesellsch.(1894-1896); Staub,Sitzungsber. d. bot. Sec. d. Kgl. ungarischen naturwiss. Gesellsch. zu Budapest(1897).Anatomy, &c.: Bommer, “Sclerotes et cordons mycéliens,”Mém. de l’Acad. Roy. de Belg.(1894); Mangin, “Observ. sur la membrane des mucorinées,”Journ. de Bot.(1899); Zimmermann,Die Morph. und Physiologie des Pflanzenzellkernes(Jena, 1896); Wisselingh, “Microchem. Unters. über die Zellwände d. Fungi,”Pringsh. Jahrb.B. 31, p. 619 (1898); Istvanffvi, “Unters. über die phys. Anat. der Pilze,”Prings. Jahrb.(1896).Spore Distribution: Fulton, “Dispersal of the Spores of Fungi by Insects,”Ann. Bot.(1889); Falck, “Die Sporenverbreitung bei den Basidiomyceten,”Beitr. zur Biol. d. Pflanzen, ix. (1904).Spores and Sporophores: Zopf,Die Pilze; also the works of von Tafel and Brefeld.Classification: van Tieghem,Journ. de bot.p. 77 (1893), and the works of Brefeld, Engler and Prantl, von Tafel, Saccardo and Lotsy already cited,Oomycetes: Wager, “On the Fertilization ofPeronospora parasitica,”Ann. Bot.vol. xiv. (1900); Stevens, “The Compound Oosphere ofAlbugo Bliti,”Bot. Gaz.vol. 28 (1899); “Gametogenesis and Fertilization inAlbugo,”ibid. vol. 32 (1901); Miyake, “The Fertilization ofPythium de Baryanum,”Ann. of Bot.vol. xv. (1901); Trow, “On Fertilization in the Saprolegnieae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. xviii. (1904); Thaxter, “New and Peculiar Aquatic Fungi,”Bot. Gaz.vol. 20 (1895); Lagerheim, “Unters. über die Monoblepharideae,”Bih. Svenska Vet. Acad. Handlingar, 25. Afd. iii. (1900); Woronin, “Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Monoblepharideen,”Mém. de l’Acad. Imp. d. Sc. de St-Pétersbourg, 8 sér. vol. 16 (1902).Zygomycetes: Harper, “Cell-division in Sporangia and Asci,”Ann. Bot.vol. xiii. (1899); Klebs,Die Bedingungen der Fortpflanzung, &c. (Jena, 1896), and “Zur Physiologie der Fortpflanzung”Prings. Jahr.(1898 and 1899), “ÜberSporodinia grandis,”Bot. Zeit.(1902); Falck, “Die Bedingungen der Zygotenbildung bei Sporodinia grandis,” Cohn’s Beitr. z. Biol. d. Pflanzen, Bd. 8 (1902); Gruber “Verhalten der Zellkerne in den Zygosporen vonSporodinia grandis,”Ber. d. deutschen bot. Ges.Bd. 19 (1901); Blakeslee, “Sexual Reproduction in the Mucorineae,”Proc. Am. Acad.(1904); “Zygospore germination in the Mucorineae,”Annales mycologici(1906).Ustilagineae: Plowright,British Uredineae and Ustilagineae(London, 1889); Massee,British Fungi(Phycomycetes and Ustilagineae) (London, 1891); Brefeld,Unters. aus dem Gesamtgeb. der Mykol.Hefte xi. and xii.; and Falck, “Die Bluteninfektion bei den Brandpilzen,” ibid. Heft xiii. 1905; Dangeard, “La Reproduction sexuelle des Ustilaginées,” C.R., Oct. 9, 1893; Maire, “Recherches cytologiques et taxonomiques sur les Basidiomyceten,”Annexé au Bull. de la Soc. Mycol. de France(1902).Saccharomycetaceae: Jorgensen,The Micro-organisms of Fermentation(1899); Barker,Ann. of Bot.vol. xiv. (1901); “On Spore-formation among the Saccharomycetes,”Journ. of the Fed. Institute of Brewing, vol. 8 (1902); Guillermond,Recherches cytologiques sur lés levures(Paris, 1902); Hansen,Centralbl. f. Bakt. u. Parasitenp.Abt. ii. Bd. 12 (1904).Exoascaceae: Giesenhagen, “Taphrina, Exoascus, Magnusiella” (complete literature given),Bot. Zeit.Bd. 7 (1901).Erysiphaceae: Harper, “Die Entwicklung des Perithecium beiSphaerotheca castagnei,”Ber. d. deut bot Ges.(1896); “Sexual Reproduction and the Organization of the Nucleus in certain Mildews,”Publ. Carnegie Institution(Washington, 1906); Blackman & Fraser, “Fertilization inSphaerotheca,”Ann. of Bot.(1905).Perisporiaceae: Brefeld,Untersuchungen aus dem Gesamtgeb. der Mykol.Heft 10 (1891); Fraser and Chamber,Annales mycologici(1907).Discomycetes: Harper, “Über das Verhalten der Kerne bei Ascomyceten,”Jahr. f. wiss. Bot.Bd. 29 (1890); “Sexual Reproduction inPyronema confluens,”Ann. of Bot.14 (1900); Claussen, “Zur Entw. der Ascomyceten,” Boudiera, Bot. Zeit. Bd. 63 (1905); Dangeard, “Sur lePyronema confluens,”Le Botaniste, 9 série (1903) (and numerous papers in same journal earlier and later); Ramlow, “Zur Entwick. vonThelebolus stercoren,”Bot. Zeit.(1906); Woronin, “Über die Sclerotienkrankheit der Vaccineen Beeren,”Mem. de l’Acad. Imp. des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, 7 série, 36 (1888); Dittrich, “Zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der Helvellineen,” Cohn’sBeitr. z. Biol. d. Pflanzen(1892).Pyrenomycetes: Fisch, “Beitr. z. Entwickelungsgeschichte einiger Ascomyceten,”Bot. Zeit.(1882); Frank, “Über einige neue u. weniger bekannte Pflanzkrankh.,”Landw. Jahrb.Bd. 12 (1883); Ward, “Onygena equina, a horn-destroying fungus,”Phil. Trans., vol. 191 (1899); Dawson, “On the Biology of Poroniapunctata,” Ann. of Bot. 14 (1900).Tuberineae: Buchholtz, “Zur Morphologie u. Systematik der Fungi hypogaei,”Ann. Mycol.Bd. 1 (1903); Fischer in Engler and Prantl,Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien(1896).Laboulbeniineae: Thaxter, “Monograph of the Laboulbeniaceae,”Mem. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, vol. 12 (1895).Uredineae: Eriksson and Henning,Die Getreideroste(Stockholm, 1896); Eriksson,Botan. Gaz.vol. 25 (1896); “On the Vegetative Life of some Uredineae,” Ann. of Bot. (1905); Klebahn,Die wirtwechselnden Rostpilze(Berlin, 1904); Sapin-Trouffy, “Recherches histologiques sur la famille des Urédinées,”Le Botaniste(1896-1897); Blackman, “On the Fertilization, Alternation of Generations and General Cytology of the Uredineae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 18 (1904); Blackman and Fraser, “Further Studies on the Sexuality of Uredineae,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 20 (1906); Christman, “Sexual Reproduction of Rusts,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 20 (1906); Ward, “The Brooms and their Rust Fungus,”Ann. of Bot.vol. 15 (1901).Basidiomycetes: Dangeard, “La Reprod. sexuelle des Basidiomycètes,”Le Botaniste(1894 and 1900); Maire, “Recherches cytologiques et taxonomiques sur les Basidiomycètes,”Annexe du Bull. de la Soc. Mycol. de France(1902); Möller, “Protobasidiomyceten,”Schimper’s Mitt. aus den Tropen, Heft 8 (Jena, 1895); Nichols, “The Nature and Origin of the Binucleated Cells in certain Basidiomycetes,”Trans. Wisconsin Acad. of Sciences, vol. 15 (1905); Wager, “The Sexuality of the Fungi,”Ann. of Bot.13 (1899); Woronin, “Exobasidium Vaccinii,”Verh. Naturf. Ges. zu Freiburg, Bd. 4 (1867).Fermentation: Buchner, “Gährung ohne Hefezellen,”Bot. Zeit.Bd. 18 (1898); Albert,Cent. f. Bakt.Bd. 17 (1901);Green,The Soluble Ferments and Fermentation(Cambridge, 1899).Parasitism: “On some Relations between Host and Parasite,”Proc. Roy. Soc. vol. 47 (1890); “A Lily Disease,”Ann. of Botany, vol. 2 (1888); Eriksson & Hennings,Die Getreideroste (vide supra); Ward, “On the Question of Predisposition and Immunity in Plants,”Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. vol. 11 (1902); alsoAnnals of Bot. vol. 16 (1902) and vol. 19 (1905); Neger, “Beitr. z. Biol. d. Erysipheen”Flora, Bde. 88 and 90 (1901-1902); Salmon, “Cultural Experiments with ‘Biologic Forms’ of the Erysiphaceae,”Phil. Trans. (1904); “On Erysiphe graminis and its adaptative parasitism within the genus,Bromus,”Ann. Mycol. vol. 11 (1904), alsoAnn. of Bot. vol. 19 (1905).Symbiosis: Ward, “The Ginger-Beer Plant,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (1892); “Symbiosis,”Ann. of Bot. 13 (1899); Shalk, “Der Sinn der Mykorrhizenbildung,”Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. Bd. 34 (1900); Bernard, “On some Different Cases of Germination,”Gardener’s Chronicle(1900); Pierce,Publ. Univ. California(1900).
(H. M. W.; V. H. B.)
FUNJ(Funniyeh, Fung, Fungha), a very mixed negroid race, occupying parts of Sennar and the hilly country to the south between the White and Blue Niles. They traditionally come from west of the White Nile and are affiliated by some to the Kordofan Nubas, by others, more justifiably, to the negro Shilluks. These Funj, who became the dominant race in Sennar in the 15th century, almost everywhere assimilated the speech, religion and habits of the Arabs settled in that region. Until the 19th century they were one of the most powerful of African peoples in the eastern Sudan. About the end of the 15th century they overthrew the kingdom of Aloa, between the two Niles, and conquered the neighbouring peoples of the Sudan, Nubia and even Kordofan. The Funj had mixed much with the Arabs before their conquests, and had been converted to Islam. But they were still in many ways savages, for James Bruce (who traversed the district in 1772) says that their most famous king, Malek-el-Gahman, preferred human liver to any other food, and the Belgian traveller E. Pruyssenaere (1826-1864) found them still performing pagan rites on their sacred Mount Gula. Ernst Marno declared that as late as 1870 the most southern branch of the race, the Boruns, a non-Arabic speaking tribe, were cannibals. The Funj kings were content with levying tribute on their neighbours, and in this loose way Shendi, Berber and Dongola were once tributary. The Arab viziers gradually absorbed all power, the Funj sovereignty becoming nominal; and in 1821 the Egyptians easily destroyed the Funj domination. To-day the Funj are few, and represent no real type. They are a bright, hospitable folk. Many of them are skilful surgeons and go far afield in their work. The fellahin, indeed, call surgeons “Senaari” (men of Sennar). See furtherSennarandSudan(Anglo-Egyptian).
FUNKIA, in botany, a genus of rather handsome, hardy, herbaceous plants belonging to the natural order Liliaceae, and natives of China and Japan. They are tuberous, with broadly ovate or heart-shaped leaves and racemes of white or pale lilac, drooping, funnel-shaped flowers. They are useful for the borders of a shrubbery, the lawn or rock-work, or may be grown in pots for the greenhouse. The plants are propagated by dividing the crowns in autumn or when growth begins in spring.
FUNNEL(through an O. Fr.founil, found in Breton, from Lat.infundibulum, that through which anything is poured, fromfundere, to pour), a vessel shaped like a cone having a small tube at the apex through which powder, liquid, &c., may be easily passed into another vessel with a small opening. The term is used in metal-casting of the hole through which the metal is poured into a mould, and in anatomy and zoology of aninfundibulumor funnel-shaped organ. The word is thus used generally of any shaft or passage to convey light, air or smoke, as of the chimney of an engine or a steam-boat, or the flue of an ordinary chimney. It is also used of a shaft or channel in rocks, and in the decoying of wild-fowl is applied to the cone-shaped passage leading from a pond and covered with a net, a “funnel-net,” into which the birds are decoyed.
FUR(connected with O. Fr.forre, a sheath or case; so “an outer covering”), the name specially given to the covering of the skin in certain animals which are natives of the colder climates, lying alongside of another and longer covering, called the overhair. The fur differs from the overhair, in that it is soft, silky, curly, downy and barbed lengthwise, while the overhair is straight, smooth and comparatively rigid. These properties of fur constitute its essential value for felting purposes, and mark its difference from wool and silk; the first, after some slight preparation by the aid of hot water, readily unites its fibres into a strong and compact mass; the others can best be managed by spinning and weaving.
On the living animal the overhair keeps the fur filaments apart, prevents their tendency to felt, and protects them from injury—thus securing to the animal an immunity from cold and storm; while, as a matter of fact, this very overhair, though of an humbler name, is most generally the beauty and pride of the pelt, and marks its chief value with the furrier. We arrive thus at two distinct and opposite uses and values of fur. Regarded as useful for felt it is denominated staple fur, while with respect to its use with and on the pelt it is called fancy fur.
History.—The manufacture of fur into a felt is of comparatively modern origin, while the use of fur pelts as a covering for the body, for the couch, or for the tent is coeval with the earliest history of all northern tribes and nations. Their use was not simply a barbarous expedient to defend man from the rigours of an arctic winter; woven wool alone cannot, in its most perfect form, accomplish this. The pelt or skin is requisite to keep out the piercing wind and driving storm, while the fur and overhair ward off the cold; and “furs” are as much a necessity to-day among more northern peoples as they ever were in the days of barbarism. With them the providing of this necessary covering became the first purpose of their toil; subsequently it grew into an object of barter and traffic, at first among themselves, and afterwards with their neighbours of more temperate climes; and with the latter it naturally became an article of fashion, of ornament and of luxury. This, in brief, has been the history of its use in China, Tatary, Russia, Siberia and North America, and at present the employment of fancy furs among civilized nations has grown to be more extensive than at any former period.
The supply of this demand in earlier times led to such severe competition as to terminate in tribal pillages and even national wars; and in modern times it has led to commercial ventures on the part of individuals and companies, the account of which, told in its plainest form, reads like the pages of romance. Furs have constituted the price of redemption for royal captives, the gifts of emperors and kings, and the peculiar badge of state functionaries. At the present day they vie with precious gems and gold as ornaments and garniture for wealth and fashion; but by their abundance, and the cheapness of some varieties, they have recently come within the reach of men of moderate incomes. The history of furs can be read in Marco Polo, as he grows eloquent with the description of the rich skins of the khan of Tatary; in the early fathers of the church, who lament their introduction into Rome and Byzantium as an evidence of barbaric and debasing luxury; in the political history of Russia, stretching out a powerful arm over Siberia to secure her rich treasures; in the story of the French occupation of Canada, and the ascent of the St Lawrence to Lake Superior, and the subsequent contest to retain possession against England; in the history of early settlements of New England, New York and Virginia; in Irving’sAstoria; in the records of the Hudson’s Bay Company; and in the annals of the fairs held at Nizhniy Novgorod and Leipzig. Here it may suffice to give some account of the present condition of the trade in fancy furs. The collection of skins is now chiefly a matter of private enterprise. Few, if any, monopolies exist.
Natural Supplies.—We are dependent upon the Carnivora, Rodentia, Ungulata and Marsupialia for our supplies of furs, the first two classes being by far of the greatest importance. The Carnivora include bears, wolverines, wolves, raccoons, foxes, sables, martens, skunks, kolinskis, fitch, fishers, ermines, cats, sea otters, fur seals, hair seals, lions, tigers, leopards, lynxes, jackals, &c. The Rodentia include beavers, nutrias, musk-rats or musquash, marmots, hamsters, chinchillas, hares, rabbits, squirrels, &c. The Ungulata include Persian, Astrachan, Crimean,Chinese and Tibet lambs, mouflon, guanaco, goats, ponies, &c. The Marsupialia include opossums, wallabies and kangaroos. These, of course, could be subdivided, but for general purposes of the fur trade the above is deemed sufficient.
The question frequently arises, not only for those interested in the production of fur apparel, but for those who derive so much comfort and pleasure from its use, whether the supply of fur-bearing animals is likely to be exhausted. Although it is a fact that the demand is ever increasing, and that some of the rarer animals are decreasing in numbers, yet on the other hand some kinds of furs are occasionally neglected through vagaries of fashion, which give nature an opportunity to replenish their source. These respites are, however, becoming fewer every day, and what were formerly the most neglected kinds of furs are becoming more and more sought after. The supply of some of the most valuable, such as sable, silver and natural black fox, sea otter and ermine, which are all taken from animals of a more or less shy nature, does very gradually decrease with persistent hunting and the encroachment of man upon the districts where they live, but the climate of these vast regions is so cold and inhospitable that the probabilities of man ever permanently inhabiting them in numbers sufficient to scare away or exterminate the fur-bearing wild animals is unlikely. Besides these there are many useful, though commonplace, fur-bearing animals like mink, musquash, skunk, raccoon, opossum, hamster, rabbit, hares and moles, that thrive by depredations upon cultivated land. Some of these are reared upon extensive wild farms. In addition there are domestic fur-bearing animals, such as Persian, Astrachan and Chinese lambs, and goats, easily bred and available.
With regard to the rearing of the Persian lamb, there is a prevalent idea that the skins of the unborn lamb are frequently used; this, however, is a mistake. A few such skins have been taken, but they are too delicate to be of any service. The youngest, known as “broadtails,” are killed when a few days old, but for the well-developed curly fur, the lambs must be six or seven weeks old. During these weeks their bodies are covered with leather so that the fur may develop in close, light and clean curls. The experiment has been tried of rearing rare, wild, fur-bearing animals in captivity, and although climatic conditions and food have been precisely as in their natural environment, the fur has been poor in quality and bad in colour, totally unlike that taken from animals in the wild state. The sensation of fear or the restriction of movement and the obtaining of food without exertion evidently prevent the normal development of the creature.
In mountainous districts in the more temperate zones some good supplies are found. Chinchillas and nutrias are obtained from South America, whence come also civet cats, jaguars, ocelots and pumas. Opossums and wallabies, good useful furs, come from Australia and New Zealand. The martens, foxes and otters imported from southern Europe and southern Asia, are very mixed in quality, and the majority are poor compared with those of Canada and the north.
Certain characteristics In the skin reveal to the expert from what section of territory they come, but in classifying them it is considered sufficient to mention territories only.
Some of the poorer sorts of furs, such as hamster, marmot, Chinese goats and lambs, Tatar ponies, weasels, kaluga, various monkeys, antelopes, foxes, otters, jackals and others from the warmer zones, which until recently were neglected on account of their inferior quality of colour, by the better class of the trade, are now being deftly dressed or dyed in Europe and America, and good effects are produced, although the lack of quality when compared with the better furs from colder climates which possess full top hair, close underwool and supple leathers, is readily manifest. It is only the pressure of increasing demand that makes marketable hard pelts with harsh brittle hair of nondescript hue, and these would, naturally, be the last to attract the notice of dealers.
As it is impossible that we shall ever discover any new fur-bearing animals other than those we know, it behoves responsible authorities to enforce close seasons and restrictions, as to the sex and age, in the killing for the purpose of equalizing the numbers of the catches. As evidence of indiscriminate slaughter the case of the American buffaloes may be cited. At one time thousands of buffalo skins were obtainable and provided material for most useful coats and rugs for rough wear in cold regions, but to-day only a herd or so of the animals remain, and in captivity.
The majority of animals taken for their fur are trapped or snared, the gun being avoided as much as possible in order that the coat may be quite undamaged. Many weary hours are spent in setting baits, traps and wires, and, frequently, when the hunter retraces his steps to collect the quarry it is only to find it gone, devoured by some large animal that has visited his traps before him. After the skins have been carefully removed—the sooner after death the better for the subsequent condition of the fur—they are lightly tacked out, pelt outwards, and, without being exposed to the sun or close contact with a fire, allowed to dry in a hut or shady place where there is some warmth or movement of air. With the exception of sealskins, which are pickled in brine, all raw skins come to the various trade markets simply dried like this.
Quality and Colour.—The best fur is obtained by killing animals when the winter is at its height and the colder the season the better its quality and colour. Fur skins taken out of season are indifferent, and the hair is liable to shed itself freely; a good furrier will, however, reject such faulty specimens in the manufacturing. The finest furs are obtained from the Arctic and northern regions, and the lower the latitude the less full and silky the fur, till, at the torrid zone, fur gives place to harsh hair without any underwool. The finest and closest wools are possessed by the amphibious Carnivora and Rodentia, viz. seals, otters, beavers, nutrias and musquash, the beauty of which is not seen until after the stiff water or top hairs are pulled out or otherwise removed. In this class of animal the underneath wool of the belly is thicker than that of the back, while the opposite is true of those found on the land. The sea otter, one of the richest and rarest of furs, especially for men’s wear, is an exception to this unhairing process, which it does not require, the hair being of the same length as the wool, silky and bright, quite the reverse of the case of other aquatic animals.
Of sealskins there are two distinct classes, the fur seals and the hair seals. The latter have no growth of fur under the stiff top hair and are killed, with few exceptions (generally of the marbled seals), on account of the oil and leather they yield. The best fur seals are found off the Alaska coast and down as far south as San Francisco.
It is found that in densely wooded districts furs are darker in colour than in exposed regions, and that the quality of wool and hair is softer and more silky than those from bare tracts of country, where nature exacts from its creatures greater efforts to secure food, thereby developing stronger limbs and a consequently coarser body covering.
As regards density of colour the skunk or black marten has the blackest fur, and some cats of the domestic kind, specially reared for their fur, are nearly black. Black bears have occasionally very black coats, but the majority have a brownish underwool. The natural black fox is a member of the silver fox family and is very rare, the skins bringing a high price. Most silver foxes have dark necks and in some the dark shade runs a quarter, half-way, or three-quarters, or even the whole length of the skin, but it is rather of a brownish hue. Some Russian sables are of a very dense bluish brown almost a black, which is the origin undoubtedly of the term “sables,” while some, from one district in particular, have a quantity of silver hairs, evenly interspersed in the fur, a peculiarity which has nothing to do with age. The best sea otters have very dark coats which are highly esteemed, a few with silver hairs in parts; where these are equally and evenly spread the skins are very valuable. Otters and beavers that run dark in the hair or wool are more valuable than the paler ones, the wools of which are frequently touched with a chemical to produce a golden shade. This is also done with nutrias after unhairing. The darker sorts of mink,musquash, raccoon and wolverine are more valuable than the paler skins.
Collective Supplies and Sales.—There are ten large American and Canadian companies with extensive systems for gathering the annual hauls of skins from the far-scattered trappers. These are the Hudson’s Bay Co., Russian Fur Co., Alaska Commercial Co., North American Commercial Co., Russian Sealskin Co., Harmony Fur Co., Royal Greenland Fur Co., American Fur Co., Missouri Co. and Pacific Co. Most of the raw skins are forwarded to about half-a-dozen brokers in London, who roughly sort them in convenient lots, issuing catalogues to the traders of the world, and after due time for examination of the goods by intending purchasers, the lots are sold by public auction. The principal sales of general furs are held in London in January and March, smaller offerings being made in June and October; while the bulk of fur sealskins is sold separately in December. The Hudson’s Bay Co.’s sales take place before the others, and, as no reserves are placed on any lot, the results are taken as exactly indicating current values. While many buyers from America and Russia are personally in attendance at the sales, many more are represented by London and Leipzig agents who buy for them upon commission. In addition to the fur skins coming from North America vast numbers from Russia, Siberia, China, Japan, Australia and South America are offered during the same periods at public auction. Fairs are also held in Siberia, Russia and Germany for the distribution of fur skins as follows:—
Of course there are many transactions, generally in the cheaper and coarser kinds of furs, used only in central Europe, Russia and Asia which in no way interest the London market, and there are many direct consignments of skins from collectors in America and Russia to London, New York and Leipzig merchants. But the bulk of the fine furs of the world is sold at the large public trade auction sales in London. The chief exceptions are the Persian and Astrachan lambs, which are bought at the Russian fairs, and are dressed and dyed in Leipzig, and the ermine and Russian squirrels, which are dressed and manufactured into linings either in Russia or Germany before offered for sale to the wholesale merchants or manufacturers.
The annual collection of fur skins varies considerably in quantity according to the demand and to the good or bad climatic conditions of the season; and it is impossible to give a complete record, as many skins are used in the country of their origin or exported direct to merchants. But a fairly exact statement of the numbers sold in the great public trade auction sales in London during the year 1905-1906 is herewith set out.
A brief account of the different qualities of the pelts, with some general remarks as to their customary uses, follows. The prices quoted are subject to constant fluctuation and represent purely trade prices for bulk, and it should be explained that the very great variations are due to different sizes, qualities and colours, and moreover are onlyfirst cost, before skins are dressed and prepared. These preparations are in some cases expensive, and there is generally a considerable percentage of waste. The prices cannot be taken as a guide to the wholesale price of a single and finished skin, but simply asrelativevalue.
The fullest and darkest skins of each kind are the most valuable, and, in cases of bluish grey or white, the fuller, clearer and brighter are the more expensive. A few albinos are found in every species, but whatever their value to a museum, they are of little commercial importance. Some odd lots of skins arrive designated simply as “sundries,” so no classification is possible, and this will account for the absence of a few names of skins of which the imports are insignificant in quantity, or are received direct by the wholesale merchants.