112 ARCHER, ON PALMOGL@A MACROCOUCCA. 
less frequent occurrence to those who seek for them; and, 
under any circumstances, Glceothece appears to have no im- 
mediate affinity with the remaining Palmoglcea-forms ; and I 
may, besides, call to mind that the endochrome in Gleothece 
is “‘phycochrome.”’ It would, therefore, be superfluous and 
beyond the object of this paper to enter into any description 
of them here. 
(3.) Palmoglea endospira (Kiitz.) = Cylindrocystis endospira 
(Bréb.), and P. closteridia (Kiitz.) = Endospira closteridia 
(Bréb.), with their distinctly well-marked, parietally wound, 
spiral band of endochrome, represent a type entirely distinct 
from the preceding or the following. I conceive they really 
and naturally belong to the genus Spirotznia (Bréb.), and, 
for my part, I see no grounds sufficient to separate them in a 
distinct genus from S. condensata, for instance ; for surely that 
the former live on damp rocks, forming confluent gelatinous 
strata, and that the latter inhabit pools and live more or less 
isolated, can hardly be accounted such. It is true that in 8. 
condensata, and some others, self-division appears to be oblique, 
whilst in P. endospira it istransverse. But I do not venture 
to express this opinion without having had an opportunity to 
examine living specimens of what I believe to be the former 
species (P. endospira (Kiitz.) = C. endospira et Endospira 
truncorum (Bréb.), which I obtained in small quantity from 
a moist cleft in arock near the road side in the “ Rocky 
Valley,” near Bray. But I make the statement with a great 
amount of deference; for I am here at variance with the 
original discoverer of the two forms, M. de Brébisson himself, 
who would still consider these as forming a genus of Palmel- 
laceze, and not as belonging to the genus Spirotenia. I sub- 
mitted mounted specimens of my plant to him; and although, 
owing to the unavoidably altered state of the plant as com- 
pared with the fresh condition, he would uot speak positively 
as to its being actually his H. truncorum, yet he believed it 
must be. I have myself little or no doubt but that so it was. 
But, on the other hand, I am fortified in the opinion of the 
actual identity of the genera Endospira and Spirotzenia by that 
of Professor De Bary, who describes a species of the latter 
genus under the name of Spirotenia muscicola, of which he 
quotes Palmoglea endospira (Kiitz.)=Endospira truncorum 
(Bréb.), as synonymous, but with a note of interrogation ap- 
pended, and this wisely, for the identity of De Bary’s species 
with those of De Brébisson must, indeed, still remain a ques- 
tion. I should, indeed, be disposed to imagine that they are 
distinct species, but, as I have indicated, belonging to the 
same genus; S. muscicola is apparently a larger form. To 
