exit rPER ARTICLES. 
RECENT WORK UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ,THE 
ARCHEGONIUM.* 
IN a recent paper already reviewed in the Gazerre,? M. L. A. Gayet 
has presented the results of an extended series of observations upon 
the development of the archegonium in the Muscinez. These studies 
were pursued in part under the direction of Professors Van Tieghem 
and Flahault, and include the principal groups of Hepatice and 
Musci. 
Having covered much the same ground in a work published nearly 
three years ago,? I have followed with much interest the results of 
M. Gayet’s investigations. Inasmuch as these differ a good deal from 
my own observations in certain details} of the development of the 
archegonium in both liverworts and mosses, I have examined again a 
considerable number of my preparations to see how far these would 
confirm the results obtained by Gayet. ‘ 
Of the genera studied by Gayet, my own work included Riccia, 
Spheerocarpus, Targionia, Madotheca, and Anthoceros, all of which 
were examined in detail. On the other genera, Pellia, Marchantia, 
Preissia and Lophocolea, my own observations were either very incom- 
plete or entirely lacking, but a number of other genera were included. 
It has been generally supposed that the Hepatice differ radically 
from the Musci in the fact that the growth of the archegonium in the 
latter is mainly apical, while in the liverworts the growth in length is 
for the most part intercalary, the “cover-cells” of the archegonium 
being very early divided by intersecting quadrant walls. Gayet claims, 
in the first place, that he has demonstrated that this division does not 
take place until a late period, and that repeated segments are cut off 
from the cover-cell which add to the length of the neck; that is, in the 
*GaYET, L. A.: Recherches sur le développement de l’archegone chez les Musci- 
nées. Annales des Science Naturelles Bot. VIII. 3: 161-258. 1897. 
January 1808, 
3 Structure and development of the mosses and ferns: Macmillan, London. 1895: 
[DECEMBER 
