28 WILLIAM ARCHER. 
accounted an alga, but relegated to the lichens as Ephebe 
pubescens. 
But it occurred to me that Bornet’s supposition, at the 
period of his writing the memoir on Ephebe, that other 
forms of apparent affinity (Stzgonema mamillosum, St. mam- 
miferum and others), being of another and different nature— 
that is, “alge,” whilst EH. pubescens was a “lichen,” could 
not be borne out.' It struck me, indeed, that if Stigonema 
atrovirens were no alga but a veritable lichen, that then the 
other Sirosiphonacee and Scytonemacee, if likewise patiently 
examined, must prove themselves of the same nature. Séi- 
gonema mamillosum and Sirosiphon- and Scytonema-forms, 
I thought, could hardly be less lichens than Ephebe pubescens 
itself; nor was I then aware that such in some cases had 
since Bornet’s paper referred to been already actually accepted 
as a fact. 
Having at that time more frequent opportunity of finding, 
amongst the Wicklow hills, the commoner representatives of 
the class than more recently, I then made a considerable 
number of gatherings and examined them as closely as I could 
for “ apothecia.” I found ita more tedious labour than might 
be supposed, for though I by and by found apothecia in 
three genera, I had to make very many hundred gatherings and 
examinations in order to be successful in encountering even 
a few “ fertile” specimens; for, though possibly more 
frequently “ fruiting ” than one might suppose from that 
fact, the opacity and closely tufted habit of most of these 
forms contribute to rendering the little dark lateral tubercles 
usually formed by the apothecia somewhat readily over- 
looked, whilst they might in some forms be even passed 
over under a low power (the only useful way of searching) as 
merely rudimentary “ branches.” 
It is matter of regret to me now that I did not at the time 
bring forward some notes upon these forms before the prepa- 
rations | had made had become spoiled; and it is also a 
matter of still greater regret that I did not secure some 
drawings more in detail than the rough sketches I am able 
to offer. But as even a chalk drawing on a black board is 
better than none, so the accompanying figures (PI. IIL) may 
serve a temporary purpose until better are forthcoming from 
some source, whilst the figures of the spores themselves may 
be accepted as accurate. 
I at once assumed from the knowledge of Epiebe pubescens, 
coupled with the additional fact of having found apothecia 
1 Bornet, loc. cit., p. 167. 
