362 REVIEWS. 



We should have been glad, if space had allowed, to have quoted an 

 interesting note in which the authors comLat the views of Linnaeus 

 as to the nature of vegetable life. The discussion, however, is of a 

 metaphysical nature, and we must refer our readers to p. 9 of the 

 text. Nor can we do more than refer to the observations on the uses 

 of fungi, which point out their importance as agents in the solution 

 and destruction of defunct organic bodies, dead vegetable matter 

 being by their action made fitter for the sustenance of living plants. 

 The assumption above alluded to that all fungi originate from 

 seed is qualified to some extent by the subsequent remarks, in which 

 the authors say, " Quare cl. Theodoro Bail libenter assentimus qui 

 verum seu legitimum Fungorum semen nos fortassis tamdiu ignora- 

 turos contendit qiiamdiu de eorum sexu incerti manserimus." The 

 true nature of the spores of Fungi has been the subject of much dis- 

 cussion. Link contended that nothing could be called a true seed 

 except what originated from an impregnated ovule, and following out 

 this view, applied the term " spores" to the reproductive bodies of 

 cryptogamic plants. Eichard, setting out with the assumption that 

 all the Cryptogamia of Linnaeus are devoid of sexual organs, says, 

 " Les corpuscules par lesquels ces plantes se reproduisent n'ayant pas 

 d'embryon ne sont pas graines." GTgertner speaks of the spores of 

 fungi as " granula venditata pro seminibus," and says, " meridiano 

 sole clarius (est) quod granula ista de vero semine nihil praeter for- 

 mam externam nacta sint, et quod rectissime habeat Schsefierus qui 

 ea jamdudum ad gemmarum gregem amendanda censuit." Ehrenberg 

 — bearing in mind the fact that the variations from the typical forms 

 in fungi are not less remarkable than in other plants, and that gemmae, 

 whilst they reproduce the individual, never give rise to such varia- 

 tions- -comes to the conclusion that spores have a higher rank than 

 buds. Lastly, the authors of the present work, taking these various 

 views into consideration, give their own opinion in the following 

 words, " Quocumque modo igitur se habeant corpuscula ilia quibus 

 propagantur Fimgi, semina sunt sui generis, quin imo sincerrima 

 semina sensu Linnaeano, nunirum ova, planta nova, singulatim 

 praegnantia, decidua et ssepissime timicata, aut si malueris, corcula, tot 

 novarum plantarum compendia." 



Although the sweeping assertions of Eichard and Gaertner have, 

 so far as relates to the higher cryptogams, been entirely disproved, it 

 can hardly yet be asserted that the spores of fungi are " ova planta 

 nova praegnantia." To describe them as " corcula tot novarum plan- 

 tarum compendia," is a far safer generality. 



In speaking of the nature and importance of the spores of finigi, 

 reference is naturally made to Fi'ies' views on the subject. It is well 

 knoMTi that that distinguished writer dwells strongly upon the im- 

 portance of a careful attention to the general phenomena of growth 

 in fungi, and that he is inclined to lay less stress upon the characters 

 derived from the sporidia. For instance, in speaking of the generic 

 distinctions of the higher Pyrenomycetes, we find him writing as 



