50 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JANUARY 
about some of the archegonia. This, as has already been suggested 
by several investigators, may account for the so-called paraphyses 
of SCHIMPER. We feel safe, therefore, in stating that so far as 
S. subsecundum is concerned there are no paraphyses about either 
the antheridia or the archegonia. 
THE MUCILAGE HAIRS 
The peculiar structures developing in the axil of each young 
leaf have been commented on by several investigators. A complete 
series in the development may be easily followed out. One of the 
axillary cells at the base of the leaf becomes papillate (fig. 47), 
divides into an upper cell and a basal cell (fig. 49), and the upper 
cell makes two acropetal divisions resulting in a filament of three 
cells (figs. 49,50). This is the mature stage. The terminal cell of 
the filament usually becomes enlarged and is filled with a dark 
staining substance, probably mucilage. Several mucilage hairs 
may arise from the axillary row at the base of a leaf (fig. 49). 
Occasionally branched forms may be found (fig. 51). As the 
leaf grows older the hairs disappear. 
Discussion 
So far as the young stages in the development on the arche- 
gonium are concerned, it appears that HOFMEISTER (5), SCHIMPER 
(10), and JANCzEWSKI (7) are all correct. An examination of many 
sections shows development by all the methods reported, as well 
as intermediate conditions not reported. In the development of 
the archegonium proper we are unable to find any evidence to 
support the statement of JANCZEWSKI (7) that adventitious seg- 
ments and canal initials are cut off asin the Musci. Furthermore, 
the evidence is clear and emphatic that the growth of the arche- 
gonium is not terminal, as GAveT (3) holds, butigintercalary. The . 
spindles shown in various figures are conclusive on this point. 
We must now consider briefly the theories of archegonial 
development among the Bryophytes, and the natural question as 
to what bearing this investigation has upon these theories. 
JANczEwsk1 (7), GOEBEL (4), CAMPBELL (1), HoLFEeRTY (6), 
and others hold that the archegonium of the Musci is to be distin- 
* 
