150 



ti meter in length, and none of them were found to branch. 

 They showed a more or less conspicuous basal tuber like that 

 described by Mettenius for 0. pedimculosum, and indeed they 

 very closely resembled his figures of the simpler forms of that 

 species. He states, however, that the prothallia he exaaiined 

 were very variable in size — from I'/o lioes in length to 2 

 inches or more. About a month later the same locality was 

 visited, and a small number of prothallia were secured, but 

 all of these were old ones. Two or three were found in the 

 garden, but these were also too old to show the young arche- 

 gonia and antheridia. The youngest specimen found (Fig. 33) 

 showed a small irregular tuberous body of a brownish color, 

 from which the white appendage or branch extended. The older 

 ones also showed the basal tuber, but the cylindrical branch 

 was much longer (Fig. 21). The tuber was b.iownish in color, 

 as were the older parts of the branch, but the tip was white, 

 ond this gradually passed into the pale brown of the basal 

 parts. Owing to their slender form the prothallia were not al- 

 ways readily distinguishable from the roots, and in some cases 

 a microscopic examination was necessary before their real 

 nature could be certainly determined. Growing from the sur- 

 face are scattered short brown hairs like those described by 

 Mettenius for 0. pedimculosum. These, according to Bruchmann, 

 are quite absent from the prothallia of (K mdgatum. Arche- 

 gonia and antheridia are formed at an early period, and can 

 be traced to the base of the fertile branch, or in some cases 

 may be found even upon the tuber. In most of the specimens 

 found at Buitenzorg, the reproduction organs were produced 

 in much smaller numbers than is the case either in 0. pedun- 

 culosum or 0. vidgatum. Among the specimens found, however, 

 was one (Fig. 23) very much larger than any of the others, 

 and this had very large numbers of old archegonia. It is highly 

 probable that this represents the second species, but unfortu- 

 nately there was no way of determining to which of the two 

 or three sp(icies associated under the name 0. moluccanum it 

 belonged. . 



