MORPHOLOGY Oi' CHARACE.-E. 1(7 



it not that the reasons for which Mr. Bennett rejects my view 

 beem to be based upon a misai^prehension of my meaning. I will 

 here endeavour to make clear the obscure points. 



Mr. Bennett understands me to say that the "pro-embryo," 

 which is developed from the apical cell of the fertilised oosphere, 

 is the entire embryo of the plant ; to say, in fact, that in this case 

 the embryo is developed from a part only of the ovum. The 

 following passages from my paper will suftice to show that this is 

 not my meaning. On page 359 I say, " the ' pro-embryo ' and the 

 basal cell together are equivalent to the sporogonium (of a Liver- 

 wort) with its seta and foot " ; and again, " the ' pro-embryo,' or 

 rntjier the true embnjo of Chara, must be regarded as the sporophore 

 of the plant." Finally, in summarising the results of the enquiry, 

 I say (page 861) that the sporophore of Chara is ''represented by 

 the embryo, i.e., the product of the development of the central-cell of 

 the archegonium." 



With reference to the accuracy of my statements concerning 

 the apogamy of Ferns, I may say that I never cited Fteris serrulata 

 as an example of it, so I cannot be fairly charged with having 

 overlooked the fact that Farlow found ' ' archegonia with embryonal 

 outgrowth " upon prothallia of this species. I have the authority 

 of De Bary* for the statement that, so far as is at present 

 known, the thi-ee species mentioned by me are only reproduced 

 apogamously. 



I will conclude with a few remarks upon the morphology of the 

 nucule. In the paper alluded to I expressed the opinion that the 

 nucule of the Characece is probably to be regarded rather as an 

 archegonium than as a carpogonium. Whichever of these two 

 terms may be accepted, it must be applied simply and only to the 

 essential organ (central-cell, — oogonium, Celakovsky) of the nucule, 

 without reference to its investment. It is this organ which is the 

 analogue of the carpogonium of the Carposporece on the one hand 

 and of the archegonium of the Muscinea on the other. It 

 resembles a carpogonium in that it is multicellular (Oosphere and 

 Wendungszellen), and an archegonium in that the fertilised 

 oosphere gives rise to an embryo. Whether the nucule be regarded 

 as a modified branch! or as a modified leaf,t there can be no 

 doubt that the spirally-wound filaments which surround the 

 essential organ (archegonium) are phyllomes. They may be 

 very naturally compared with the perichaetial leaves of Mosses. 



* Uebei- apogame Fame. Bot. Zeitg., 1878, p. 403. 

 + Sachs; LehrbuGh, 4th ed., 1874, p. 800. 

 I Celakovsky ; Flora, 187H, p. 49. 



2 A 



