ON THE PLACE OF CHARACE.E IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM. 259 



homologous with the thaUns (protonema) of Mosses, however it 

 may resemble it in general ai^pearance. 



On comparing Characem with Prothallogams, we find a resem- 

 blance in the structure of the phytozoa, and in the main points of 

 the process of germination, in both the neutral plant originating 

 crosswise and directly from the top of the embryo or of the oospore. 

 But there is a wide difi'erence in the total absence of anything like 

 the sexual prothallus so xDeculiar to the Prothallogams, as also in 

 the complex organisation of the antherocyst compared to the 

 simx^ler antheridium, and of the oogemma compared to the arche- 

 gonium, and in the very different origin of both, which in Characem 

 proceed directly from the neutral form and not from spores pro- 

 duced by it ; on the o'ther hand, comparing them with Phanero- 

 gams, we find a marked resemblance of structure, coupled with 

 the same origin, between the oogemma of the one and the gemmule 

 (misnamed ovule) of the other ; and I perfectly agree with Cela- 

 kovsky in considering them homologous organisms. There is, 

 moreover, a similarity of origin in the male forms of both the 

 groups, equally proceeding from bodies which are modifications of 

 leaves. But alongside with these analogies we have such dif- 

 ferences in the structure of the male apparatus, and in the process 

 of formation of the neutral plant, which in Phanerogams begins as 

 an embryo placed lengthwise at the end of a proembryo, that there 

 is no need to insist on the necessity of separating Characea from 

 Phanerogams as well as from Prothallogams. 



Then what remains to be done with them, except to recognize 

 simply that they have a right to stand by themselves as a distinct 

 group, equal in rank to the four others generally admitted ? Sachs 

 was the first to think so, and I am sorry to see he has altered his 

 opinion, on grounds quite insufficient, as Mr. Bennett has well 

 shown. As a distinct grou^^, the position of my Schistogams can 

 be nowhere but between Phanerogams and Prothallogams, in a 

 morpliological system of classification, such as ours all essentially are. 



One last word on a more general subject. As none of the pri- 

 mary groups that I have admitted m my classification — Phanero- 

 gams, Schistogams, Prothallogams, Bryogams, Gymnogams — are 

 of my own making, it may be deemed superfluous, or even worse, 

 for me to have given them new names (except the first one). 

 I have been led to do so by the following considerations : — Fkstly, 

 in order to put forth more strongly the idea, which now-a-days 

 will be disputed by very few, that the old class Cryptogamia of 

 Linneus must be split up into a number of groups, each fully 

 equivalent to the Phanerogams. Secondly, to do away, for these 

 groups, with such names as Vascular Cryptogams and Cellular 

 Cryptogams, which imply that they are subdivisions of some superior 

 group. I really believe it would be a gain for science to let fall 

 altogether the term Cryptogams, which in the present state of botany 

 has nothins: left it but a negative signification. 



