xxxvi.] POTATO DISEASE, II. PASSIVE STATE. 311 



troversial matter, only referring to disputed opinions 

 and deductions by giving without bias the views held on 

 both sides. Nothing is more damaging to the position of 

 science than disrespectful and hasty criticism and anim- 

 adversion. It is, however, necessary to inform our readers 

 that our views, as here advanced, in reference to the 

 nature of the oospores of the potato fungus and of 

 Artotrogus, have been criticised by Professor A. de Bary 

 of Strasbourg, in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural 

 Society of England, second series, vol. xii. p. 239, 1876. 



Professor de Bary's objections to our views were the 

 following : 



1. He disapproved of our comparison of the potato 



fungus oospores with the oospores of Protomyces ; 

 see our notes under Protomyces macrosporus, Ung., 

 in this work. 



2. He could not accept our drawing as illustrating the 



potato fungus at all, as it presented an important 

 difference, he said, from the real Peronospora in- 

 festans, Mont. 



3. Our assumed " oogonia," " antheridia," and " oospores," 



he said, were " bladders," and did not belong to 

 the potato fungus. 



4. The mycelium, he said, was wrong, as the threads 



bearing "oogonia" and "antheridia" were only 

 shown in local and not in anatomical relation with 

 each other. 



5. He objected to the septa shown by us in the 



mycelium. 



6. He objected to the habitat we gave for the oospores, 



i.e., in decayed potato material. 



7. He stated in reference to Artotrogus that there was 



no evidence of its nature as an oospore. 



8. That there was no reason for considering it as be- 



longing to the potato fungus. 



9. That the smooth form of Artotrogus was a different 



fungus from the echinulate one found with it. 



