ARCHER, ON SAPROLEGNIER. 121 
An anecdote was once related to me of a great botanist (I 
think Robert Brown) who, being shown several so-called spe- 
cies of exotic plants, remarked that he had seen several of the 
supposed species united in one plant in their native habitat. 
On Two New SPECIES in SAPROLEGNIEA, referable respec- 
tively to the genus SAPROLEGNIA (Nees vy. Esenb.) and 
Acuyta (Nees y. Esenb.). By Witi1am ArcHER. 
Even at the risk of being, perhaps, considered as some- 
what premature in coming forward to describe two new species 
in the family Saprolegniez, without being quite satisfied as 
to the particular genus to which I assume, from certain data 
afforded, that they each respectively belong, I still venture to 
do so, inasmuch as the reproductive parts offer abundant cha- 
racters to establish them as, indeed, distinct, undescribed spe- 
cies, although their generic position may remain uncertain. 
As is now known, the generic characters in this family 
seem to depend on the mode of formation and evolution of 
the zoospores, and the specific characters on the conditions 
of the sexually developed reproductive organization, and on 
the special figure of the oogonia. Hence, unless one be suc- 
cessful in finding one of these plants in a sufficiently early 
condition to gain a view of the formation of the zoospores, 
which ordinarily precedes the true fructification, its generic 
position cannot be definitely predicated. On the other hand, 
if one see the zoospores only, and thus establish the genus, 
but fail to get a view of the conditions of the other type of 
fructification, the species to which any particular plant be- 
longs must remain undetermined. So far as more modern 
research goes, and so far as I have myself had the fortune to 
find any of these plants in a fertile state, it appears to me 
that here there exist various forms which, at least, seem to 
maintain an identity of conditions, and individually to pre- 
sent the same recurring characters. On this point, however, 
I dare not as yet speak definitively. The extended experi- 
ence of various observers of these productions in their different 
stages may be requisite to solve the question. All we can as 
yet go upon is experience hitherto. The possibility that 
some of these forms may haye stages of development which 
take place out of water, does not seem to speak against their 
individuality. The views of some authors, if hereafter borne 
