214 | | MR. Œ. MURRAY AND MISS E. S. BARTON ON THE 
The supposed relationship of *Chantransia-forms " with Lema- 
neaceæ has been mentioned already, and it now becomes necessary 
to examine this question more carefully in the light of the facts 
set forth. More especially is this the case, since Ch. Boweri 
and Ch. violacea grow on the thallus of Lemanea. In Prof. 
Atkinson’s paper, p. 222, Chantransia violacea var. Beardslet, 
Wolle, is quoted under Lemanea fucina, Bory; and in a foot- 
note to this he says, “ This is the Chantransia-form of Lemanea 
(Sacheria) fucina, Bory, var. rigida, which Wolle found ‘as an 
undergrowth, intermingled with Lemanea, which was fringed 
with the parasitic C. violacea, from Painsville, Ohio." Prof. 
Atkinson has figured this ‘‘Chantransia-form of Lemanea fucina” 
on plate vii. figs. 6 and 10. His meaning is therefore plain; 
though it is difficult to understand how he ever came to reach 
it. Not only is his “Chantransia-form” many times larger than 
Ch. violacea, but in much more important respects the resem- 
blance is sadly to seek. Kützing’s imperfect figure of his own 
species is probably the origin of Prof. Atkinson’s mistake; but 
whatever var. Beardslei may be, it is certainly not a variety of 
Ch. violacea. More than this, it is necessary for us to prove 
that it is no true Chantransia at all. In calling it so, Prof. 
Atkinson of course but follows the example of Sirodot, Peter, 
and others in associating what appears to be a Chantransia 
with a Lemanea. It will be remembered that Sirodot’s “Chan- 
transia-forms" of Batrachospermum are sporophytes, but that 
the “Chantransia-torms " of Lemanea are protonemal merely, and 
bear no monospores. But Ch. violacea bears monospores. 
Next, let us take Ch. Boweri. Not only have we described 
its monospores, but its sexual organs of reproduction as well; 
and it, too, grows on Lemanea. It is of importance to state 
here that we actually obtained in the same preparation, on the 
same slide, at one time the antherids of Chantransia Boweri 
and the antherids of Lemanea fluviatilis on which it grows. 
There could be no possible excuse for mistaking the one for 
the other. This interesting observation not only disposes of 
any question of identity between Ch. Boweri and Lemanea, but 
it is fatal to any ingenious theory to the effect that sexual repro- 
ductive organs might possibly be borne on the protonemal form 
under abnormal circumstances. Here, under the same circum- 
stances, side by side, were these two plants both bearing an- 
therids, and these antherids of a different type. It must be 
