chlamydospores and or conidia - how to describe the difference? (Jun/20/2008 )

you mean you still do not agree with the use of spermatia as a way to describe the microconidia or?


If that is the case, then I can understand your point of view, but to me, the use of spermatia for the microconidia is just a word they selected to describe it.
To me, they could simply called it "*%M" (fill in any word you want ) instead of spermatia. I think its just a term to give the "thing" a name and not more.
And I think they simply picked spermatia because it has some sort of link with it, altough its not 100% correct as we know real spermatia.


If thats not the case, that what is not compelling?

---

right pito - I am not convinced the term is correct. Using a term insinuating sexual reproduction - meiosis - when none is demonstrated is inappropriate.

---

Eum I see.
I understand your point of view.
(atleast I think I do)

For you , there is only a spermatium when this spermatium is a result of a sexual cyclus, right?



Ok, but what with the following interpretation:

there is meiosis during the forming of the ascospores.
So when a microconidia stimulates or starts the forming of ascospores (as they can do, check the files I have given) and then you have 8 ascospores, would you then call those ascospores spermatia?
and what with the microconidia (wich are asexualy made , but now act in a sexual proces)?


or not?

Or are you against the term spermatium all toghether because there is no male nor female form in fungi.

So even of there is meiosis , without the male or female not spermatia?


Its getting a bit complicated and a lot about "how to use terms".

---