K.— BOTANY. 189 
The author traces all ‘ the fundamentals of the construction ’ of plants 
(and animals) to their ‘ preceding phase of marine benthon.’ Does this 
imply that the more rigorous conditions of the Land Habit—generally 
believed to be more potent in the evolution of new forms—is incapable 
of ‘inventing ’ a new structure ? 
In most cases the author explains the various stages in evolution in 
terms of physics and chemistry; and it is interesting to note that he 
believes that every adaptation is the response of the organism to environ- 
mental factors. Then what exactly does he mean when he says that ‘no 
feature of somatic organisation was ever designed from the beginning to 
meet the special circumstances in which it may be now functional ? ?— 
I suppose we must regard the words ‘designed from the beginning’ as 
a metaphorical expression, for the very next expression is: ‘ Teleological 
interpretations carry their own condemnation.’ But there are several 
other such examples, and they are rather puzzling. 
The above are a few of the many questions that occur to one in studying 
_ these interesting and original ideas—questions asked in no captious spirit, 
_ but in a real desire to obtain a little more light on the story of life in the 
 plant—a story that, of late, has become to many of us more and more 
_ bewildering. 
A great deal of work has been carried out of late on the various bodies 
found in the Pheophycean cell, but so great is the disagreement between 
_ the investigators as to the origin, composition, and, in the case of some,- 
even the functions of these, that we feel the need for additional research. 
Since the careful researches of Hansteen, the bodies which he called 
* Fucosan,’ but which were called by Crato, Church, and others, ‘ physodes,’ 
have attracted attention. One of the most remarkable facts relating to 
them is their power of self-movement. This is described as ‘ amoeboid,’ 
but in Dictyota it is often more slug-like. It is curious’ to watch one 
moving along a protoplasmic strand, the back humped up, but the anterior 
and thinner end turning from side to side as if feeling its way. That 
they give a bright red colour with a solution of vanillin in HCl is well- 
known, but some of the writers do not seem to be aware that the reaction 
is not given in young cells, and that the colour is particularly pronounced 
in old reproductive cells especially old antheridia. Kylin and Mangenot 
have again investigated these bodies, but their results are at variance. The 
same may be said as to the accounts that have been given by Mangenot 
and others of the origin and functions of mitochondria and other cell 
constituents, as well as of the studies of Kylin, Meves, and Mangenot of 
the constitution of Fucus antherozoids. These, then, are ae sme un 
problems requiring further investigation. 
Within recent years the most striking advance in Algological study 
has been made in our knowledge of the reproductive processes in the 
_Pheophycee. Until a few years ago the only member of the group whose 
_ mode of reproduction was well known was Fucus. Opinions were divided 
_ regarding gametic fusions, many of the reported zygotes being described 
by the sceptics as double spores that had not separated in the gametangium, 
a plausible explanation, for the phenomenon is frequent even as high as in 
the eggs of the Fucacee. Very little was known even about the repro- 
ductive structures in the Pheosporales, and many of the failures of Algo- 
logists to trace the reproductive processes were ascribed to parthenogenesis 
