10 Nr. 4. L. KoLDERUP ROSENVINGE: 
(l. c. p. 258). This latter remark is of interest, as it refers 
to an important fact which will be mentioned later, but 
it has a quite different meaning to that suggested by 
the author. DARBISHIRE adds that antheridia and procarps 
do not occur on the same plant, but this is not in accor- 
dance with my observations, as will be mentioned later. 
He supposes that the antheridia appear in the autumn and 
that the parasite then enters the host-plant through the 
ostioles. He imagines that “it is not unlikely that what we 
see germinating on Phyll. Brodiwi in the autumn is really 
a carpospore”, (l.c. p. 263) produced by an unknown 
sexual generation. He finally relates that “In discussing 
the question a short time ago with Professor REINKE, the 
latter suggested as a possibility, which ought not to be 
dismissed prima facie, that Actinococcus might really be an 
asexual generation of Phyll. Brodiaei, growing parasitically 
on the sexual generation” (1. c. p. 264). But the author 
does not consider it very probable that this represents the 
true state of affairs, and he maintains the view that the 
nemathecia of Phyll. Brodiwi have not yet been found. 
It will be seen that the problem is still very dubious 
after DARBISHIRE’S last paper. It has not been treated later 
on by researches or experiments, but R. W. PuHiILuips has 
given a valuable critical survey of it in 1925. In citing 
DARBISHIRE’S reference to cystocarps in Phyll. Brodicei 
he states that these organs have never yet, as far as he 
can ascertain, been collected in British waters. He further 
states, in accordance with DARBISHIRE, that he has “seen 
what seemed to me to be derelict procarps ... in the 
neighbourhood of the Actinococcus nemathecia” (1925, p. 252). 
REINKE’S suggestion is mentioned; PHıLLıps points out that 
the carposporophyte in diplobiontic Florideæ is always 
