188 BOTANICAL GAZETTE 
In 1881 LeEITGEB studied alcoholic material of male and female 
plants of a Monoclea from New Zealand, the male plants of which — 
had earlier been described as Dumortiera dilatata, and found that, 
except in the larger size of the plants and of the involucre, they agreed 
closely with Monoclea Forsteri. In the male plants he found that 
the form and distribution of the male receptacles was as described 
by GorrscueE (’67). The receptacles he likens to those of Fegatella, 
and notes that the elongated, conical antheridia are secondarily sunken 
in the cavities of the receptacle. These characters of the male plant 
he thinks show as striking a resemblance to the Marchantiaceae as do_ 
those of the female plant to the Jungermanniaceae, but which set of 
characters is to preponderate as an index of relationship Lerrcrs 
does not definitely decide. 
SCHIFFNER(’93), in characterizing the genus Monoclea, apparently 
overlooks the later papers of both GorrscHE and Lerrces, and 
states that the male plant is unknown. He also says that the wall of 
the capsule is of two layers of cells, though both Gorrscue and Lett 
GEB say it is one-layered. Scurrrner is then naturally led to follow 
Leircep’s earlier conclusion (’77) that Monoclea is shown by the 
female plant and sporogonium to be closely related to Pellia. 
Coincidently with ScurrrNEr’s work appeared a paper by Ruck 
(93), in which he described the development of the male receptacle 
and the antheridium, as worked out on preserved material from Vene- 
zuela, more completely than had been done by LEITGEB. According 
to RucE several transverse walls appear in the primarily superficial t 
antheridium mother-cell before any longitudinal ones are formed. 
The series of figures given does not show the details of the further 
development of the antheridium clearly, and the series for the arche- 
gonium is still less satisfactory. 
In this description of the female plant RucE agrees with ee 
and LeircEs, but gives more details as to the development - ; 
archegonial cavity. RucE, for some reason not clear to the — 
described the slender rhizoids as being also thin-walled and the — 
ones as thick-walled, the exact contrary of the condition found . 
GortscHe, Lerrces, and the present writer. 
CAMPBELL (’98) in a short paper reviews briefly the be 
aring of the | 
work of Hooker, GortscHE, LeircEB, and RucE, and poe 
