MESOTANIUM, AND SPLROTANIA. 205 
for the species given by him are but superficial, and the in- 
trinsic and peculiar characteristics of the forms neglected— 
what else could it be but an endeavour to identify recent 
living examples with his? Is not, indeed, like difficulty 
often experienced in identifying species from descriptions, 
and especially if accompanied by insufficient figures, in other 
‘departments of nature, where many and more readily avail- 
able characters and more tangible holdpoimts present them- 
selves, but which difficulty would probably be removed by the 
inspection of fresh authentic specimens? The difficulty of 
identifying these particular forms ranking themsclves under 
the three genera in question with those from which Kiitzing 
wrote his descriptions does not, I apprehend, in itself speak 
against their individuality and distinctness; and the species 
themselves included in these genera are indeed, after all, but 
few. It is true that Kiitzing himself, even in regard to alee 
far higher, and as to some of which an claborate reproductive 
organization is now known, considered them not a species (I 
mean in the commonly understood old sense, and as Kiitzing 
himself would doubtless apply the word to the higher plants), 
but as merely forms. Yet, even in “ Palmoglea” Kiitzing 
recoguises the differences from his specimens, though I think 
he fails to seize upon those of importance, or successfully to 
portray them either with his pen or pencil. 
Again, Dr. Hicks seems to say, because the plant (distinct 
in itself, at least) which I would refer to Palmoglea macro- 
cocca (Kiitz.) truly belongs to Mesotwnium (Nag.), one of 
several genera into which the genus Palmogleea (Kiitz.) should 
be divided, that such a circumstance in itself would seem to 
argue for the complete uncertainty of any of the forms in- 
cluded by Kiitzing in his genus. If we have now a more 
accurate knowledge of the individual forms of Kiitzing’s 
genus and their intrinsic characteristics, than that distin- 
guished algologist appears to have had when he wrote, per- 
haps from his not having always examined living specimens, 
it is surely not very wonderful that it should be necessary, 
or at least that it should be advisable, to redistribute certain 
minor groups of them, agreeing in certain common charac- 
ters, into other genera. In order to illustrate this, indeed, 
1 need but refer to the old multifarious genera, Conferva and 
Lichen. Because the incongruous species formerly included 
in these old and, as we now know, unnaturally comprehensive 
genera have had to be parcelled out here and there according 
to the special characteristics and affinities of each, notwith- 
standing blanks in our knowledge as regards even many of 
the smaller groups, it has not happened that this task has 
