E 132 MR. HENFREY ON THE DEVELOPMENT 
. The archegonia are stated by him to be found exclusively upon the thickened part of 
the prothallium (in opposition to Wigand), as I have described them. He further says 
that the earlier stages of development are difficult to make out, but he believes the 
papilla originates by the subdivision of one of the cells of the prothallium into four by 
vertical septa crossing each other, these growing out into a conical body; the canal, and 
the cavity at the base (the embryo-sac) are supposed to originate as intercellular cavities, 
by the separation of the cells bordering them. The canal is closed at first and open after- 
wards. It is evident from these statements that the earlier conditions of the embryo-sac 
were overlooked. The mucilaginous filaments in the canal of the archegonium were seen 
and figured by Schacht, who correctly asserts that they are not decaying spermatozoids, 
as supposed by Suminski. He states that the embryo originates in the cavity at the base 
of the archegonium (the embryo-sac); but he seems to suppose it to be merely a vegetative 
growth, as is evident from the concluding paragraph of his memoir :— 
“Since the ‘germ-organ’ (archegonium) is not open originally, but closed, the fact of 
its opening subsequently, when it has become surrounded by a high cellular wall, together 
with the circumstance that the direction of the orifice is downwards, render it scarcely 
conceivable how * spiral-filaments’ could make their way into it; moreover, in spite of 
the utmost patience and care, I could never observe a ‘ spiral-filament ’ inside the ‘ germ- 
organ,’ still less the conversion of one of them into the * germ ' (embryo). Consequently . 
the impregnation of the Ferns, as described by Count Leszezyc-Suminski, is more than 
improbable, and thus the inclusion of the Ferns among the Phanerogamia is by no means 
Justified.” 
In these conclusions we see that the bias given by the adherence to Schleiden’s doctrine 
of the origin of the embryo in the Phanerogamia, of which Schacht is one of the leading 
defenders, has prevented his entertaining the idea of the spermatozoids exerting simply a 
fertilizing influence. All his argument is against the conversion of one of them into an 
embryo, so that the hypothesis I have adopted is not touched by the above statement, and 
it is unnecessary to add further remarks. 
Le the following year M. Mettenius* published some important researches on this and 
ci rm er cnn 
this his statements agree in the essential articular en nn > 
he ino belies ei “ : culars With: those I have given above, since 
and giving origin by its division to t k a ede zn piene 
ehe "ise Dai eg i u a which subsequently grows up. There is 
RER ses an > e was probably in error, namely, in reference 
Bu ur do face bos : pike = > x projecting portion of the archegonium. He 
Siew ap cquably and bonne divided V wu " un vertical walls, that these four cells | 
each composed of four or five calls pe : : : septa so as to form four parallel columns 
SAEPE OF Which the vanal leading down do hembras en a E intenal 
passage. My observations, as aves tad le era » mm 
hat different from this se ^ri FOR > ead me to believe that the process is some- 
, at Hofmeister's description is more correct. 
* Beiträge zur Botanik, Heft i. Heidelberg, 1850. 
