6 BOTANICAL GAZETTE [JULY 
3- La cellule terminale ne donne point de cellules de canal, pas plus chez 
les Mousses que chez les Hépatiques. 
4- Les cellules de canal du col ont toutes la méme origine; elles provi- 
ennent toujours d’une initale détachée de la cellule mére de l’oosphére; il n’y 
ena point d’adventives qui seraient formées aux dépens de la cellule terminale. 
GAYET’s conclusions, therefore, are diametrically opposed to 
those reached by other investigators. 
In 1898 GOEBEL (5) gives a rather brief and unsatisfactory 
account of his examination of Mnium undulatum. He states 
(p. 17): ‘I find in this plant confirmation through- 
out of the statements of JANCZEWSKI and others, and 
that the archegonium of the Musci is to be dis- — 
tinguished from that of the Hepaticae by its peculiar — 
apical growth” (text fig. 1). The cell represented — 
as apical in this figure is most certainly not the one — 
described by JANcZEWsKI. GOEBEL’s illustration | 
would lead us to believe that the canal row has been — 
formed by the activity alone of the one cell marked +. 
formation described by Janczewskt. Hence GOEBEL 
must be entete as giving an ans? different 
: im reproduced once, and fig oon greece cell adding to the < do : 1 
from Gorser’s row. In 3 other archegonia he shows the t topmo : 
ee Sem canal cell i in the ‘Process of Len while i in one case 
