20 ON DE. H. A. -U'EDDELl's REMARKS. 



predominate — for the nature of the locality is entirely diverse. 

 " This difference in the relative situation of the two public walks 

 had appeared to nie, on the contrary, to be precisely what was suited 

 to give some interest to the comparison of their respective floras." 

 — Wedd. Certainly it would have been legitimate to produce any- 

 thing really comparable or analogously noteworthy, if it had been 

 a case of comparison between cities far distant from each other 

 (for example, Paris and Pekin in China), but an urban and sub- 

 urban truth of the same lichenose region could not differ except in 

 number of species — a matter, indeed, of small importance. 



VI. In this paragraph, the author, in the Friesian manner, and 

 supported by a long experience (" an experience of several years," 

 as he says), does not entirely disregard the reactions of lichens (" my 

 wish was to defend the method, as far as I deemed it practicable," 

 — what benevolence towards the poor reactions, and what a de- 

 fender!). " There are some things to accept and some to reject," 

 still says Dr. Weddell. Here we have a judge " making a deeper 

 inspection" (as Fries says of himself), wherefore we may eagerly 

 expect, as I have previously hinted, that we shall learn from his 

 experience how far he considers that the chemical auxiliaries are 

 to be approved of. If he had at least brought forward some ex- 

 amples, where the chemical characters failed, I should have perhaps 

 anew undertaken their defence ; but, in the meantime, unless 

 I am much mistaken, the Weddellian opinion, which in this respect 

 also is indeterminate, affects the reactions bat very little. 



VII. In this last paragraph, 1 formerly intimated that the expe- 

 rience of the author by no means shines 'forth. He had found 

 apothecia of " Lecanora sribfuscu,''' in which he had affirmed that 

 he had found brown, 1-septate spores. This I immediately declared 

 in a letter was a very wonderful circumstance,* that is entirely 

 absurd, or equivalent to one saying that he had found the kernel of 

 a cherry innate in an apple or a pear, instead of the seeds, which, 

 according to the usual laws of nature, should there be found. Now, 

 by an artifice which he doubtless thinks useful, to my words, " He 

 had indeed submitted to me heterogeneousf apothecia growing 



* Now the author transcribes from my letter (1873) the won^s relating to this, 

 as quoted in " Grevillea," p. 185 (foot note). So I wrote in jest. Are not these 

 words sufficiently clear, and what else on any faithful rendering do they mean 

 than that " this is a miracle ; I know nothing so prodigious." It was not worth 

 while to make a further examination of the apothecia sent. It was only when I 

 saw the author thus taxing me, " M. N. hesitated to pronounce as to this 

 anomaly," that I turned myself to the determination of those apothecia, and 

 explained the miracle. Amongst the animadversions of Dr. Weddell, there occurs 

 the following : — He admits the gonidia to be instruments of nutrition, but not 

 organs,-— "as instruments (I dare not say organs) of lichen-nutrition" — a distinc- 

 -tion which pertains to the physiological discoveries of the author. Vital instru- 

 ments of this kind are organs, that is, are endowed with vital functions. 



f Let it be noted that I did not say that there was sent to me the apothecia of 

 *' Lecanora subfusca," but " heterogeneous" apothecia, which Dr. Weddell main- 

 tained that he gathered growing mixed with the apothecia ©f a " Lecanora sub- 

 fusca," under which name, as is easily perceived, he did not have regard to true 

 Lecanora subfusca, but to something indeterminate, belonging to the section of 

 Lecanora subfusca. 



