635 



to have left it severely alone ! At any rate, the sequel may show 

 that a more careful study of it would have left him with more space 

 at his disposal for a criticism of "the main contention of the paper", 

 — a criticism about which he speaks, but with which, apparently, he 

 has forgotten to furnish us. Of the three paragraphs in which his 

 main attacks are delivered, only for one, the second and least important, 

 can there exist any justification in fact. But a little consideration 

 would, I think, have shown Prof. Mac Millan that his remarks regard- 

 ing this in paragraph 2 of p. 440 were unnecessary; for surely it 

 was plain to him that, after the word "gamete" and the phrase 

 "union of like gametes" had been repeatedly employed in the course of 

 the preceding twenty pages, it was merely a slip of the pen to have 

 substituted "zygotes" for "gametes" on p. 254. 



It was to myself very irritating to find that such a slip had 

 escaped correction, and had even evaded the eyes and ears of skilled 

 botanists ^). 



Paragraph 1 of the criticism runs as follows. "On p. 241 of this 

 journal he says 'when conjugation between pairs of similar cells arose 

 among the primitive Protozoa (or Protophyta) etc' I am unable 

 to understand this. For by definition, as currently accepted, con- 

 jugation is quite unknown among Protophytes." 



On p. 241 I myself read: "It may at this juncture be useful to 

 consider what must have been the general result of the initiation of 

 conjugation between unincellular organisms in j)ast ages. When con- 

 jugation between pairs of similar cells arose among the primeval Pro- 

 tozoa (or Protophyta) etc." 



There is in the English language a fair margin of difference 

 between "primitive" and "primeval", and the latter word can be used 

 in a sense to which the former would be inapplicable. Taken away 

 from its context, especially from the preceding phrase "in past ages", 

 and with the substitution of "primitive" for "primeval" the passage 

 cited by Prof. Mac Millan might conceivably bear the interpretation 

 put upon it by him. But where is the justification for such a course ? 

 What right has a critic to alter passages which is quoted in inverted 

 commas ? 



No literal reading of the first six lines of p. 241 would enable a 

 just critic to find any reference to existing Protophyta in them. 



1) Another such slip, which has liappily escaped Prof. Mac Millan s 

 notice, is the word "gametozooid" instead of "sporozooid" in line 17 of 

 p. 246. 



