18 ON DR. H. A. WEDDELl's REMARKS. 



sinuation of the author* as not a little perfidious ; he makes com- 

 plaint where I with better right might complain. Such a course 

 of conduct may readily be allowed to those who employ such 

 devices. It is sufficient to submit to the reader, and to succinctly 

 examine the new assertions of the author in reference, as he says, 

 to ' some passages quoted from my two last lichenological brochures, 

 misunderstood by my critic, or wrongly dealt with.' Let us follow 

 the heads in the order and the numbers in which they are given in 

 * Grevillea.' " 



I. Here,f strange to say, we fall upon a new Algo-lichen hypo- 

 thesis. " The truth is, it is difficult to deny that many lichens 

 during the first stage of their life are connected parasitically with 

 some of the inferior Algge. At a later period, however, when the 

 Alga, assuming the form of Gonidia, becomes included within the 

 tissue of the lichen, the connection, if still kept up, can hardly 

 continue to be regarded as parasitical." It pleases the author that 

 it should be so. Thus theories are invented (truly it is an easy 

 matter), which may well be called ' fancies.' To consult nature 

 and rely upon observations is superfluous ; it is convenient over 

 and above the personal method of viewing these, to neglect entirely 

 or to regard as but of little value, contrary observations. The 

 author, indeed, seems to be ignorant that very many lichens have 

 gonidia not enclosed, wherefore his opinion would at once have to 

 be largely and widely extended, and by a direct road indeed would 

 lead to the veriest Schwendenerism, of which he himself so plainly 

 indicates that he is an adherent. 



II. In the Friesian manner, Dr. W. had* contended that it had 

 been incorrectly said that lichens derive nourishment from the 



* " I regret that one whom . . . should have thought it needful, on account 

 of some variance of opinion on scientific matters, to treat me so much like an 

 enemy."— Wedd. What are the differences of opinion ? I bring forward obser- 

 vations in science but no opinions. He then appears as an enemy who points out 

 where an author has committed a fault and has published what is contrary to 

 science, though such may not always be passed over in silence. He makes mention 

 of a letter written by him concerning my note inserted in the " Flora." What 

 the intention of this was I know not. It can be regarded only as proper that 

 what is publicly done should be publicly followed up. 



t '■ Dr. N. takes occasion to develop his opinion," &c. — Wedd. I gave not 

 opinions but observations, concerning which Dr. W. expresses this opinion : — " As 

 regards Dr. N.'s special objections to an Algolichen hypothesis, I do not see that 

 they are in any way conclusive, not one of them really coming to the point." This 

 recalls to memory the Friesian saying, " Amongst all the writings of our age, 

 we a,re least pleased with those of Nylander." The author evidently strives to 

 attain the Friesian and Lindsayan glory. But I have demonstrated (by obser- 

 vations not opinions) that the filamentose elements of lichens are not the same 

 as the hypha3 of fungi. I have demonstrated that the gonidia arise from the 

 first within closed cellules of the thallus, and do not in any way come from 

 any external quarter. This is sufficient, and more than sufficient to refute all 

 Schwendenerism. Dr. W., not without cause, thinking vague and indeterminate 

 arguments the best, speaks also of "many facts lately adduced," but what these 

 are he does not mention, nor, in truth, are there any such existing. The first 

 germs of lichens and fungi are seen affixed in corpuscles of some kind or other. 

 Were it not so, according to an amplification of the Fl'iesian doctrine, the 

 gouidia would constitute parasites of the thalli — another opinion, which would 

 make the thallus and apothecia parasites of the gonidia, is even more absurd. 



