HICKS, ON MR. ARCHER’S PAPER ON ALG. 257 
rently large result by that which cannot be relied upon, 
although it may have the attraction of being definite. 
In this particular subject especially algologists have 
generally endeavoured to restrict nature into the narrowest 
compass; they have made orders, genera, and species mnu- 
merable, out of the simple physiological process of cell-growth, 
and have used even the ordinary variations of subdivision as 
a means to classification. 
Had a tithe of the labour bestowed upon the classification 
of the Palmellacez been devoted to their life-history, some 
progress by this time would have been made in the herculean 
task. 
One point, I think, will tend to shake our confidence in the 
certainty of the separate existence of these forms, to which I 
have also formerly alluded ; it is this, that when we consider 
the multitudes of mosses and lichens to be found everywhere 
capable of producing gonidia, and from them Palmellaceous 
forms to an indefinite extent, and varying probably according 
to the species, what absolute proof can we possibly have of 
the separate existence of any similar form unless we know its 
history? I am sorry to give utterance toso much scepticism, 
and to cause such perturbations in the minds of those devoted 
to the subject; but I am certain the sooner misgivings 
occur on the validity of the mode hitherto adopted, the sooner 
we shall attain a more satisfactory knowledge of what I am 
certain will prove to be a wide page in the book of nature. 
Mr. Archer has rather misunderstood me in concluding 
that I consider all species of British Palmogloea can arise 
from the lichen Cladonia. I mean that all forms similar to 
those hitherto described can certainly arise from it, but I 
do not mean to affirm that no other forms of vegetable life 
do not also give origin to similar cells. I have little doubt 
but that a more extended knowledge of the matter will show 
that segmenting gonidia of other orders will also produce 
similar forms, as I have already shown in the mosses. At 
the same time I do not mean to say there are no such forms 
as distinct Palmellacez. I admit it is possible; but I ask, 
how are we to be sure the specimen before us is so? For 
this reason I cannot agree with thinking with Mr. Archer 
that I have been hasty or comprehensive in my generaliza- 
tions. 
What value in classifying can be attributed to that peculiar 
action called conjugation? I think we can hardly judge at 
present. That it is but a process of vegetative, as distinguished 
from sexual action, is clear; but whether it is to be considered 
as a sign belonging only to the Confervoid group-section, it is 
