( xxviii ) 



brought forward, coupled with, a similar fructification having been re- 

 corded in a very few other related species, would go to indicate that 

 these so-called Algae were not algcB truly hut lichens. According to 

 the newer view propounded by de Bary and Schwendener, all such 

 cases would only represent so many instances of the invasion of the 

 algse concerned by so many distinct fungal parasites, of which the 

 apothecia were the proper fructification. 



There could be little doubt but that, upon either view, the five 

 plants (either as regards the" algse" or the " parasites") herein referred 

 to, as well as Bornet's Liclienospliceria and Spilonema and Nylander's 

 Gonionema (not to speak of Epliehe), are so many quite distinct 

 species. If the apothecia are to be regarded as the "fruit" of the 

 several forms of the algcB in question, even though some may externally 

 so very closely resemble, these (algee) must be quite distinct species 

 inter se ; if, on the other hand, the apothecia must be looked iipon as 

 the fruit of the " parasite" invading the various algae in question, in 

 accordance with the new view, then the parasites attacking each 

 must be mutually quite distinct species, and, taken on the whole, mar- 

 vellously choice in their selection of "host." 



Proceeding on the latter assumption, two of the forms now 

 brought forward would have to be regarded as two "new species," 

 falling either under the genus EpTiebella Itzigsohn, or Gonionema, 

 Nylander. The three other forms would probably have to be referred 

 as "new species" to Spilonema, or, one of them, wanting paraphyses, 

 to Liclienospliceria, Bornet. 



For the new view much that has been advanced by its supporters 

 is very cogent and striking, if not yet conclusive. 



But in "lichens" like Ejjhehella, Gonionema, Ephebe^ Spilonema, 

 Liclienospliceria, in which it is the "alga" which builds up the out- 

 ward configuration of the thallus, and which simply harbours latent 

 within it the parasite, the latter making itself externally evident only 

 by its exserted apothecia, does it not seem inconsistent to describe the 

 characters of the thallus of the alga as part and parcel of those of the 

 " lichen ? " Thus Bornet, in giving the characters of Licheno splicer ia 

 Lenormandi, describes it generically thus : — "Thallus tenellus, ramosus, 

 fruticulosus, fere omnino stigonematoideus basi corticatus;" and speci- 

 fically he speaks of it as " Thallus fusco-niger, tomentoso-intricatus." 

 This, for so far going on the Schwendenerian view, is nothing more 



