` 180 . MR. HENFREY ON THE DEVELOPMENT 
fig. 80, where the ragged tissue (4) is seen to be the torn edge or collar always found 
where adventitious roots break out from the interior of a stem. 
It is unnecessary to enter into any other points. It is seen that the only matter in 
which I am agreed with Suminski is the import of the organs and the existence of a sexual 
conjunction; in all the details of the processes I am at variance with him. Nothing, 
however, can take from him the credit of having discovered the archegonia and their im- 
port, one of the most important discoveries in physiological botany of modern times; 
since it has led to results revolutionizing the whole theory of the reproduction of plants, 
and opened out a totally new sphere of inquiry into the laws and relations of vege- 
table life. 
The next contribution to the subject to which such a lively interest had been attracted, 
was a paper by Dr. Wigand *, giving a detailed account of a series of critical observations 
on the question, and dedueing conclusions directly opposed to those of Suminski. Dr. Wi- 
gand's observations do not seem to have been complete and thorough-going, for he also 
describes the perfect antheridium as a single cell, and appears to have confounded the 
complex structure seen in the effete antheridia with that of the archegonia (p. 23 loc. cit.). 
His description of the development of the sperm-cells within the antheridia is nearer the 
truth; but while right in rejecting the ideas of Nägeli and Suminski, that these originate 
by free cell-formation around a nucleus, he fell into a different error in supposing that the 
cellules were not in contact at first, but were formed in groups around isolated portions of 
the cell-contents. His description of the spermatozoids is pretty accurate, but the differ- 
e he describes appear to me to indicate different stages of development, and not to 
epend upon the specific differences of the specimens examined. He overlooked the 
earliest stages of the growth of the archegonium, and especially the existence of the 
uiii papi uci papilla; the account of the later stages of development 
ES akiassaing en. But he observed the later conditions of the abortive 
structures” (p. 49 Sr, cit.) nn ependent organs, which he called “peculiar glandular 
nected with the papilliform A tape Agana; their: being: bonaideted. no. 00d 
ET » Closed at its summit, forming the upper free portion 
de. ERU Grid at. great length against the existence of a process of impregna- 
, e only fact of importance I find in his arguments is the statement that he 
Ee inde gh SA many cases where no archegonium existed on the prothallia. 
es ias >} u and I feel confident that his investigations were im- 
ee er; ` "Any Pages of arguments which he urges against Suminski's 
y 5e passed over, since my own observations, if, as I fully believe them, correct, 
remove the necessi : : à 
E E ER i: sity "E discussi on, by showing the facts to be different. With regard to 
sien S against the probabilities of the fertilization, I think it unne- 
