120 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



our knowledge of these plants, in making clear, — 1. That in the case 

 of Champia parvula the apical growth is not from a single apical cell, 

 but, as Berthold has pointed out, from a cluster of them ; 2. That 

 each of these apical cells is morphologically at the tip of one of the 

 longitudinal filaments ; 3. That in the three or four cells which seem 

 to be morphologically the tip of the filament each cell divides, part 

 going to form parts of the adult filament, the rest to join in the forma- 

 tion of the cortex ; 4. That the diaphragms and bulb-cells are alike in 

 origin, iu being formed by outgrowths from the filaments ; and, 5. It 

 would appear from the limited number of observations made on this 

 point that the branches always have their origin opposite a filauient. 



NOTE. 



In October, 1886, Mr. Bigelow, then a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of 

 Science, undertook, at my suggestion, the investigation the results of which are 

 given in the preceding pages. At the time, I was not aware that any other 

 botanist was working on the same subject, and it was not until April, 1887, that I 

 learned from the " Botanisches Centralblatt " that Professor F. Deb ray had just 

 published a paper entitled " Recherches sur la Structure et le De'veloppement du 

 Thalle des Chijclocladia, Champia et Lomentaria," covering the same ground as 

 that on which Mr. Bigelow was at work. I was unable to obtain a copy of the 

 original paper of Professor Debray, published in the " Bulletin Scientifique du 

 Departement du Nord," IX. 253-266, until late in May, and as at that time 

 Mr. Bigelow had practically finished his work, it seemed to me best that he 

 should publish his results, although they were in accord with those of Professor 

 Debray. It should be said, in explanation of the omission by Mr. Bigelow of 

 any reference to Professor Debray's paper, that he did not see a copy of it until 

 after his own paper was quite finished and in my hands for publication. Had I 

 known at an earlier day that Professor Debray was at work on this subject, I 

 should, of course, have suggested a different topic to Mr. Bigelow. As it is, his 

 work is a confirmation of previous results reached quite independently, because, 

 as I have said, he was in complete ignorance of what had been written by 

 Professor Debray until after his article was finished. 



W. G. Faulow. 



