ARCnEE OS PALMOGIXEA MACROCOCCA (KUTZ.). 23 



would seem far more probably to be merely a starch-granule, or a "chlo- 

 rophyll-vesicle" (Nag.) In Cylindrocystis Brebissonii two such granules 

 occur in ordinary cells, and four in cells about to divide, and they ap- 

 pear quite homologous and identical in nature with the similar bodies 

 occurring in Closterium, &c. &c. If by Palmoglcea Brebissonn is meant 

 by Hicks Coccochloris Brebissonii (Thwaites),* although Thwaites' de- 

 scription and figures hardly admit of a certain conclusion as to whether 

 any species more recently described by Continental writers may be 

 identical with it, yet Hicks' figures do not at all seem to me to be 

 identical with, or even at all to resemble, those of Thwaites. The 

 former represent a rather narrow egg-shaped form, while the latter is 

 described as "cellulis subsphaericis vel rotundato-ellipticis ;" and, set- 

 ting aside the scantiness of the accompanying filaments (which, as I 

 before indicated, I conceive have no connexion with the cells), Thwaites' 

 figures remind me more of Trichodictyon rupestre (Kiitz.) = Cylindrocystis 

 crassa (De Bary). But I put this latter surmise forward merely sug- 

 gestively. In point of fact, Hicks' figures do not seem to me absolutely 

 identical with any of the species described by De Bary, nor with any I 

 have myself encountered ; and if, as the former states, " the remainder 

 of the British species of Palmoglcea or Coccochloris" (that is, exclusive of 

 " Palmoglcea Brebissonii," of which after all he has doubts) " can cer- 

 tainly be produced from Cladonia," he has at least not figured them, 

 nor explained the process. But I do not suppose that Palmoglcea and 

 Coccochloris are synonymous, or at least they are only so in part. 

 Itzigsohn,f I find, likewise, makes the statement that he cannot at all 

 regard the "so-called Palmoglceae as independent organisms," express- 

 ing a hope at some time, eventually, to publish the observation on 

 which this assumption is founded. This promised communication I 

 have not been able to hit upon. But surely the finding of " Palmogloea" 

 or other forms in company with various algae is not, as I venture to fancy 

 Itzigsohn, indeed, too frequently seems to assume, any proof of a genetic 

 relationship. Again, I would beg to say that I put forward the forego- 

 ing opinions merely as those which have forced themselves on myself, 

 and I trust I may not be thought to have expressed them too dogma- 

 tically or too confidently. 



What, then, is Palmoglcea macrococca (Kiitz.), as to the identity of 

 which Alexander Braun expressed so much doubt ? I certainly should 

 consider that the plant figured by him^: is not the species in question. The 

 former, undoubtedly, Braun' s plant — for De Bary tells us he identified 

 it from the fresh and authentic specimens — has been since described by 

 the latter as Mesoteenium Braunii. If this were Kutzing's macrococca, I 

 wonder how he could omit to notice the striking " chlorophyll-plate." 

 M. Braunii differs from Palmogloea macrococca (Kiitz.) so far as Kutzing's 



* " Annals of Natural History," N. S., vol. iii., p. 243. 



x Ttzigsohn, " Skizzen zu einer Lebensgeschichte ties Hapalosiphon Braunii," p. 295 : 

 Weber, Bonn. 



J Loc. cit., PI. I, and II. 



