l84 MONOGRAPH OF THE MYXOGASTRES. 



his usual kindness, has confirmed the opinion expressed by my 

 friend, and has written : — "It is like the cmglosaxonicns of the Rub. 

 Exsicc. Danica, No. 41. . . . At present I do not see how to 

 separate it from Gelertii of the same fine collection, Nos. 39 and 

 40 ; and as Gelertii is No. 80 in the original paper, and ang/osaxonicus 

 81, I feel bound provisionally to use Gelertii as the name. I have 

 authentic specimens of that also." — W. H. Painter. 



y 



NOTICES OF BOOKS. 



A Monograph of the Myxogastres. By George Massee. London : 

 Methuen & Co. 1892. Pp. 367, tab. col. 12. Price 18s. 



If the lichen-gonidia question be excepted, there has been no 

 more exciting controversy in the morphology of the lower organisms 

 than that concerning the nature of the Myxomycetes. It has 

 engaged workers of first class ability, such as De Bary and Cien- 

 kowski, and others of less note but excellent performance, and has 

 caused angry passions to rise with almost as great vehemence 

 as the lichen discussion while it lasted. It has attracted the 

 "biologist" especially, and the man who studies the phenomena of 

 life at second-hand has hovered round this question, and explained 

 its difficulties in the unerring way with which we are all familiar. 

 De Bary's brilliant work at the group — it stands out as a masterly 

 performance even from among other labours of this great botanist 

 — attracted shoals of critics and speculators, who raised the usual 

 din, and obscured the issue with as much malignity as if their vested 

 interests or political convictions were involved, instead of a mere 

 matter of investigation. The "chronique scandaleuse " of Botany 

 has few darker pages than those which contain the wilful and 

 Bhameful distortions of the views of De Bary in this matter, and of 

 Schwendener on the lichen question : and tiie prejudices thus raised 

 continue to this day. 



It is therefore with satisfaction that we find in Mr. Massee's 

 opening pages an even-tempered discussion of De Bary's position, 

 and an analysis of his reasons — a discussion which, if it embodies 

 any misrepresentation of opinions, certainly contains none consciously 

 so presented. It is somewhat hard to ascertain Mr. Massee's own 

 personal view in this matter, but there is no difficulty in making 

 the discovery that De Bary's arguments do not satisfy Mr. Massee's 

 critical judgment, and consequently that he does not approve the 

 exclusion of Myxomycetes from the vegetable kingdom, at all events 

 for the reasons given by De Bary. It is a free country, and the 

 matter is largely one of opinion; and we are content to leave 

 the question as it stands, De Bary's sober statement based on 

 his magnificent work on the one side, and on the other Mr. Massee's 

 statement based on a verbal criticism (a criticism hardly free from 

 a playing with words) and his own considerable personal studies ; — 



"I consider the Myxogastres as illustrating one of the earliest 



