164 ERYTHEA. 



appearance to those be describes upon Lomentaria were dis- 

 covered upon Champia parvula by Dr. W. A. Setcbell, who 

 thought them to be the antheridia. The writer has, however, 

 observed upon Champia the development of secondary organs 

 of attachment resembling those of Lomentaria, which are 

 without doubt the structures noted by Dr. Setchell. 



After making the observations upon Lomentaria which led 

 to the discovery of the true nature of the organs described by 

 Webber, and to the undoubted fact that the antheridia of 

 Champia were still undescribed, a careful investigation was 

 made, both upon living and preserved material, into the 

 structure and development of the organs found upon 

 Champia. 



When this examination had been practically completed, an 

 article upon the development of the cystocarp in Champia by 

 Dr. B. M. Davis (8) appeared in the Botanical Gazette. In 

 this paper he mentions the fact of having found antheridial 

 plants of Champia and states that in one instance the same 

 plant bore both antheridial and cystocarpic branches. The 

 structure of the antheridia is said to be somewhat similar to 

 that in the genus Lomentaria described by Webber. Since 

 this paper by Davis did not describe in detail the structure 

 and development of the antheridia, it seemed best to the writer 

 to publish the results of his own investigations. 



In connection with the obsei'vation made by Davis that in 

 one instance he found both antheridia and cystocarps upon the 

 same plant, it does not appear to the writer, after a careful 

 examination of all the material collected by him, that such a 

 condition is a common one. Careful search was made with 

 a view to ascertaining whether the antheridia were borne 

 upon distinct forms, or upon the cystocarpic and tetrasporic 

 plants. Upon the two latter forms no antheridia were dis- 

 covered, but in two instances antheridial plants were found to 

 have fused with cystocarpic and tetrasporic plants after 

 growth was well advanced. It seems possible that the plant 

 mentioned by Davis as producing both cystocarps and 

 antheridia might have been a case of fusion of this character. 



