204: ARCHER, ON CYLINDROCYSTIS, 
portance, and in it he propounds many pertinent queries. 
As he, however, differs with me in some of the opinions put 
forward in my paper, which, indeed, I do not yet see reason 
to change, and as I am, on the other hand, quite disposed to 
agree In a great measure with him on certain other points 
put forward by him, though not referred to by me in my 
previous paper, I may, perhaps, be allowed again to offer a” 
few observations on the subject. 
Bat I must in limine contend, inasmuch as my paper was 
not on Palmellaceze in general, but on the genus Palmogloea 
(Kiitz.) in particular, that much of the reasoning and many 
of the questions propounded by Dr. Hicks do not therefore 
apply to, nor do they, I think, at all controvert, my therein- 
expressed views. And it is for this reason that I say I 
venture in some points to disagree from, and in others to 
agree with, Dr. Hicks ; forif we conceive Palmoglcea (Kitz.), 
or, more properly speaking, the three genera Cylindrocystis 
(Meneghini), Mesotzenium (Nag.), and Spirotenia (Bréb.), 
which, indeed, were the actual subjects of my paper, to be 
eliminated from the question, | thnk I must in a measure 
acquiesce in his views, though without at all consenting as 
yet to accept them in the aggregate. 
Dr. Hicks puts forward the title of my paper—“< An 
Endeavour to identify Palmoglea macrococca (Kiitz.)”—as, 
in itself, some argument for the want of stability in the 
Palmoglcean species. Considering this uncertainty as regards 
these forms as unquestionable, he would from them, as a 
starting-point, argue as regards Palmellaceze generally. It 
is true that he attacks the independence of many of that 
family elsewhere on far better grounds; and it seems to me 
that arguments against the independence of the species of 
Cylindrocystis, Mesotzenium, and Spirotenia, would at least 
be more forcible if made through the Palmellacez than are 
arguments made against the Palmellaceze in general based 
upon the forms included im the three genera mentioned. 
For, irrespective of the question of the Palmellacez in 
general, I believe, at least as far as present knowledge goes, 
that these three genera seem to hold themselves quite dis- 
tinct, and their species to reproduce themselves by what I 
must regard as a true generative act. And that I entitled 
my paper “ An Endeavour to identify Palmoglea macrococca 
(Kiitz.)” seems to me not to conflict with this view, nor at 
all to indicate that I thought it did. If Ktitzing’s descrip- 
tions of these forms are so scanty, and his figures so defec- 
tive (1 say it with all deference, and with much reverence for 
so indefatigable and experienced an observer)—if the diagnoses 
