ARCHER, ON PALMOGL@A MACROCOCCA. 121 
cells), Thwaites’ figures remind me more of Trychodictyon 
rupesire (Kiitz.) = Cylindrocystis crassa (De Bary). But I 
put this latter surmise forward merely suggestively. In point 
of fact, Hicks’ figures do not seem to me absolutely identical 
with any of the species described by De Bary, nor with any 
I have myself encountered; and if, as the former states, 
“the remainder of the British species of Palmogloea or 
Coccochloris”’ (that is, exclusive of “ Palmoglea Brébissonii,” 
of which, after all, he has doubts) “can certainly be produced 
from Cladonia,’ he has as least not figured them, nor ex- 
plained the process. But I do not suppose that Palmogloea 
and Coccochloris are synonymous, or at least they are only 
soi part. Itzigsohn,* I find likewise, makes the statement 
that he cannot at all regard the “so-called Palmoglaa as in- 
dependent organisms,” expressing a hope at some time, even- 
tually, to publish the observation on which this assumption 
is founded. This promised communication I have not been 
able to hit upon. But surely the finding of “ Palmoglea” 
or other forms in company with various alge is not—as I ven- 
ture to fancy Itzigsohn, indeed, too frequently seems to 
assume—any proof of a geneticrelationship. Again, I would 
beg to say that I put forward the foregoing opinions merely 
as those which have forced themselves on myself, and I trust 
I may not be thought to have expressed them too dogmati- 
cally or too confidently. 
What, then, is Palmoglea macrococca (Kiitz.), as to the 
identity of which Alexander Braun expressed so much 
doubt? I certainly should consider that the plant figured 
by himy is not the species in question. The former, un- 
doubtedly Braun’s plant—for De Bary tells us he identified 
it from the fresh and authentic specimens—has been since 
described by the latter as Mesotenium Braunii. If this were 
Kiitzing’s macrococca, I wonder how he could omit to notice 
the striking “chlorophyll-plate.” M. Braunii differs from 
Palmoglea macrococca (Kitz.) so far as Ktitzing’s descrip- 
tions and figures permit us of judging, in its larger size, 
shorter length in proportion to its width, and its more 
broadly rounded extremities, and, if I be right in my identi- 
fication of these plants, in several other more positive and 
decisive characters, although to the accustomed eye these ex- 
ternal marks will distinguish sufficiently readily, at least, our 
Dublin forms. I do not think that P. macrococca, as Braun 
supposes, is the same thing as Coccochloris Brébissonit 
* Itzigsohn, ‘Skizzen zu einer Lebensgeschichte des Hapalosiphon Braunii, 
p. 295. Weber, Bonn. 
+ Loe. cit., pl. i and ii. 
