BOTANICAL NEWS. 247 
that they were Fungi. I used the term " Gregarines " in the same sense a9 that 
in which Lindemann employed it ; in fact, I believed that the bodies which 
Dr. Beigel showed were those described by Lindemann as Gregarines, which he 
declares to be vegetable. Lindemann refers to Lebert, who found similar 
bodies in the disease called far us. This view and use of the term is adopted 
also by Eobin ( £ Les Veget. Paras., 2nd edit. p. 291), Leydig (Miiller's Archiv, 
1851, p. 221, and Arch, fur Anat, u. Phys., 1863, p. 191), and others. That I 
used the term in reference to a vegetable was clear from the fact of my stating 
that I was germinating the growth in a saccharine solution, from the brief and 
unreported description I gave at the Pathological Society of the cell-elements 
and the movements of the contained granules, and my original letter in the 
'Lancet.' Dr. Beigel' s attempt to father me with the declaration that the 
fungus was an animal is absurd, and only shows how unacquainted he is with 
the written opinions of well-known authors. With regard to the article in 
Science Gossip,' showing my development of knowledge on the subject, jiari 
passu, with the development of the plant as shown by Dr. Beigel at the Patho- 
logical Society, I need only say that its contents are wholly at variance with Dr. 
BeigeFs opinions. I wrote it because especially asked to do so. It did one 
thing— thoroughly demolished Pleurococcas Beigeli. It showed that the fungous 
growth on the hair was only a modification of a well-known form. This no 
doubt explains the tone of Dr. Beigel's communication. Dr. Beigel shows his 
annoyance at my presuming to deprive him of his pet Pleurococcus, but I can't 
help it. He had much better not have shown it by accusing me of drawing 
ev erything that came within the range of my objective, and confounding various 
ty<* and Infusoria with the Pleurococcus, which must be now considered 
defunct." I am content to bide my time. I used the greatest care, expended 
vei 7 much time and trouble over the matter, and I suppose no one in this 
country has gone into the subject of vegetable parasitic diseases, and the arti- 
ficial growth of fungi, more fully than myself; and my observations in the case 
of the <c chignon fungus" were checked by the eye of a very acute observer 
minute hfe. I did see spores, assuming an algal form, enlarging, becoming 
fiU ed with small cells and getting ciiiai I. The cilia were very difficult to 
juake out with a ^ objective. My drawings are like Actinophrys, it is true, but 
gure something else. Dr. Beigel is a man of lively parts ; he has been too 
j^xiousto "dub" me a plagiarist and a blunderer in science, and really I 
™* the tables might be very justly turned upon himself. 
J « l S I2tt> 18G7. 
I am, Sir, yours faithfully, 
Tilbuby Fox, Jf.D. 
On the so-called Chignon Fungus. 
Wl U you allow me to say a word with regard to the so-called Chignon 
^a ? Firstly, with regard to the use of the term " Gregarine" by Lmde- 
man Q, m describing this or a similar growth on the hair of Russian peasants. A 
