REMARKS ON DR. KYLANDER's PAPER. 185 



at once detect it — for my wis!) was to defend bhe method, as far as 

 I deemed it practicable, and therefore it could scarcely be expected 

 that I should set forth arguments thai would have produced a con- 

 t rary effect. 



7°. (Nyl. 1. c.) P. 10, legitur: "1 have seen in souk; apothecia 

 of this variety or of the following, (In 1 normal spores of Lecanora 

 subfusca replaced by spores in equal number of an entirely dis- 

 tinct physiognomy, etc. M. Nylander, to whom 1 submitted the 

 parts, hesitated to pronounce upon the possible causes of such an 

 anomaly." Hie experientia auctoris minime splendescit. Mihi 

 quidem submiserat, etc. — I have nothing to object to this, being 

 quite confident that I committed the blunder attributed to me. 

 The so-called anomalous apothecia were undoubtedly, as Dr. X. 

 states, nothing else but those of a Physcia accidentally intermingled 

 with those of the Lecanora, and seeming to arise from the same 

 thallus. I cannot,- however, omit remarking that, as regards Dr. 

 N.'s answer to my letter on the above case, his memory must 

 certainly have failed him, for his translation of the passage con- 

 cerning it, by the words: " Hocce miraculum est, nihil tarn pro- 

 digiosan novi" is anything but Jidissima. Indeed my conviction 

 is, on again perusing his letter,* that, for the time being, he was 



somewhat taken in also Nor did his memory 



serve him, I am sorry to say, a bit the more faithfully, when he 

 wrote the following (1. c, p. 62): "Mihi quidem submiserat 

 apothecia heterogenea cum apotheciis ' Lecanorce subfuscccj cujusdam 

 immixta crescentia" etc. — The fact is that I only sent Dr. N. a few 

 "halves" of isolated apothecia, all with fuscous spores, the exis- 

 tence of which I had taken care to ascertain hy a microscopical 

 examination of the halves corresponding. How is it, then, that, 

 being under the impossibility of making any comparison whatso- 

 ever between the apothecia of the two species, from the inspection 

 of "my" specimens, the learned author should have thought him- 

 s If authorised to conclude his pamphlet with such a precise 

 affirmation as the following: — " Addatur, quod nulla respectu, nee 

 i xterno nee anatomico, apothecia ambarum similitudinem quandani 

 pfferunt ?" 



* Here is the passage allu.led to of Dr. NylamWs letter :— " Vous av> z 

 n^surement f nit une bien siuguliere decouverte en deuichant des apothecies du 

 Lecanora subfusca dont les theques coutienuent des spores brums biluculaires. 

 Qu'ont ces spores Leterogenes a t'aire dans cette galere ? Un cas teratoloyique ou 

 i! iraculeux de cette force ue tn'etait pas encore cunnu." Be it observed that this 

 was written on the 22nd of Biaroh, 1873, tli.it is almost a year previous to Dr. 

 N.'a writing (I. c, p. 63 ) : Examinatis quidem "hodie" a/potheciia tllia 

 moxpatuit, apotliecis sporis fuscis proedita periinere ad " Physciam aipoUam." 



