A FEW LAST WORDS ON CHAEA. 67 



reaching the margin. Sori terminal on the veins, globose, marginal, 

 distinctly immersed. — Allied to P. taxifolium and apiculatum of 

 Tropical America. Named at the request of Mr. Burbidge in 

 comiDliment to the Honom-able Peter Leys, M.B., Colonial Sm-geon, 

 Labuan, who materially aided him dm-ing his residence there, and 

 accompanied him on one of his expeditions into the interior. 



Polyjiodiiim albo-squamatum, Blume. 



Polyjjodium palmatum, Blume. 



Vittaria elongata, Sw. 



Antrophytum reticulatuni, Kaulf. 



TcBnitis blecknoides. Sw. 



Gymnogramme Wallichii, Hook. 



Osmunda javanica, Blume. 



Lycojjodium Phlegmaria, Linn. 



Selaginella caulescens, Sprmg. 



Selaginella Willdenovii, Baker. 



Selaginella conferta, Moore. 



Selaginella caudata, Spring. 



Selaginella atroviridis, Spring. 



A FEW LAST WORDS ON CHARA. 



By Alfred W. Bennett, M.A., B.Sc, F.L.S. 



In my paper **0n the Structure and Affinities of Characece,'' 

 which appeared in the number of the ' Journal of Botany ' for 

 July, 1878, 1 attempted to establish the follow^ing points : — 1. That 

 the assignment of Characece to a position among Thallophytes, 

 and especially in the class Carposporece, is an erroneous one. 

 2. That their nearest alliance is with Mtiscinem. 3. That the 

 use of the term pro -embryo (Vorkeim), in relation to Characem 

 and Muscinea is a misleading one, the organ in question having 

 no relationship to the pro-embryo or suspensor (Vorkeim) of 

 Phanerogams and SelaginellacecB. 4. That the so-called pro- 

 embryo is homologous to the protonema of Muscinem. 5. That 

 the designation of the unfertilised archegonium as ' sporangium' 

 is altogether erroneous. 6. That CharacecB exhibit an absence 

 of alternation of generations, by the suj)pression of the non-sexual 

 generation. I venture to think that the interesting discussion 

 which has followed has at all events done something to settle 

 at least some of these points. The 5th point will be so 

 generally admitted as to need no fm-ther discussion. On the 

 1st I have the satisfaction of being supported by both Prof. 

 Caruel and Mr. Vines ; and on the 2nd by Mr. Vines. The 

 best solution of the taxonomic question is probably to retain, as 

 he proposes to do, Characece in then* ancient position as a distinct 

 group next to Muscinea^. My 3rd proposition will probably not 

 meet with many disputants ; and there remain therefore the 4th 

 and 6th, which are chiefly dwelt upon in Mr. Vines' s able paper in 



