ON DE. H. A. WEDDELl's REMARKS. 21 



mixed with the apothecia of some Lecanora siibfusca,'^ the author 

 adds the following : — " The fact is that I only sent Dr. N. a few 

 halves of isolated apothecia, all with fuscous spores, the existence 

 of which I bad taken care to ascertain by a microscopical examina- 

 tion of the halves corresponding. How is it, then, that, being 

 under the impossibility of making any comparison whatsoever be- 

 tween the apothecia of the two species from the inspection of 7ny 

 specimens, the author should have thought himself authorised to 

 conclude his pamphlet with such a precise affirmation as the follow- 

 ing : — " It may be added that, in no respect, either external or 

 anatomical, do the apothecia of both present any likeness ?" What 

 an insinuation is here also put forth (namely, that I passed a judg- 

 ment on apothecia not seen by me !). The most inexperienced at 

 once can see that this is an argument of no weight, not to say 

 captions. There is not even the smallest word in what is cited and 

 what I have written, that is affected by the censure of the author. He 

 had sent me two entire apothecia, and one half (not " a few halves"),* 

 saying, " these apothecia, with bi'own spores, &c., are the apothecia 

 of Lecanora siibfusca" (" dont les theques renferment des spores 

 qui ne devraient pas s'y trouver !" — Wedd.), " and occur amongst 

 other normal apothecia of Lecanora subfusca.^' What need was 

 there of any comjDarison with these or his oivn specimens, for certi- 

 fying (for anyone possessed of the least lichenological knowledge 

 ought to know this) that the apothecia of some Lecanora subfusca 

 or other (that is, this name also being vaguely assumed) in no res- 

 pect present any similarity with the apothecia sent, having brown 

 spores, although the author affirmed that the apothecia sent were 

 in all parts (the spores excepted) similar to the normal apothecia 

 of that Lecanora (" sans changement dans les autres parties de 

 I'apothecie"). I have already mentioned that the apothecia with 

 brown spores so unlucldly referred to by the author to his marvel- 

 lous Lecanora subfusca belong to Plnjscia aipolia, which, from a 

 hundredth part of an apothecium (and even without spores) is to 

 be distinguished at once from every species of the section of Le- 

 canora subfusca. I remit the insinuation of the author to his own 

 conscience. 



From the preceding seven notes, it is abundantly clear what 

 force there is in the Remarks of Dr. Weddell. There we see him 

 rashly taking up a more adverse position than formerly. And truly 

 what appears most astonishing is the circumstance that certain 

 authors, who boast they always act according to right and justice 

 (readily speaking of " a friendly and courteous manner," or of 

 other compliments, which they freely claim for themselves, but still 

 more freely omit .to give in their turn), judge whatever pleases 

 themselves to be lawful for them. So the widest license would be 

 opened up for their impairing or railing against the writings of 



* Be it observed that a microscopical examination is by no means necessary to 

 distinguish "brown spores" of an apothecium, a double lens is sufficient. 



