ARCHER — ON " PALMOGLCEAN " ALG.E. 263 



where on far better grounds ; and it seems to me that arguments'against 

 the independence of the species of Cylindrocystis, Mesotsenium, andSpi- 

 rotsenia would at least he more forcible if made through the Palmella- 

 cese, than are arguments made against the Palmellaceae in general 

 based upon the forms included in the three genera mentioned. For, 

 irrespective of the question of the Palmellaceas in general, I believe, 

 at least as far as present knowledge goes, that these three genera 

 seem to hold themselves quite distinct, and their species to reproduce 

 themselves by what I must regard as a true generative act. And 

 that I entitled my paper "An Endeavour to identify Palmoglcea ma- 

 crococca (Kiitz.)" seems to me not to conflict with this view, '"nor at 

 all to indicate that I thought it did. If Kiitzing's descriptions of 

 these forms are so scanty, and his figures so defective (I say it with 

 all deference, and with much reverence for so indefatigable and expe- 

 rienced an observer) — if the diagnoses for the species given by him are 

 but superficial, and the intrinsic and peculiar characteristics of the 

 forms neglected — what else could it be but an endeavour to identify 

 recent living examples with his ? Is not, indeed, like difficulty often 

 experienced in identifying species from descriptions, and especially if 

 accompanied by insufficient figures, in other departments of nature, 

 where many and more readily available characters and more tangible 

 holdpoints present themselves, but which difficulty would probably be 

 removed by the inspection of fresh authentic specimens ? The diffi- 

 culty of identifying those particular forms ranking themselves under the 

 three genera in question with those from which Kutzing wrote his de- 

 scriptions does not, I apprehend, in itself speak against their indivi- 

 duality and distinctness ; and the species themselves included in these 

 genera are indeed, after all, but few. It is true that Kutzing himself, 

 even in regard to Algse far higher, and as to some of which an elaborate 

 reproductive organization is now known, considered them, not species 

 (I mean in the commonly understood old sense, and as Kutzing himself 

 would doubtless apply the word to the higher plants), but as merely 

 forms. Yet even in " Palmoglcea" Kutzing recognised the differences 

 from his specimens, though I think he fails to seize upon those of im- 

 portance, or successfully to pourtray them either with his pen or pencil. 

 Again, 'Dr. Hicks seems to say, because the plant (distinct in itself 

 at least) which I would refer to Palmoglcea macrococca (Kiitz.) truly 

 belongs to Mesotasnium (Nag.), one of several genera into which the 

 genus Palmoglcea (Kiitz.) should be divided, that such a circumstance 

 in itself would seem to argue for the complete uncertainty of any of the 

 forms included by Kutzing in his genus. If we have now a more ac- 

 curate knowledge of the individual forms of Kutzing' s genus and their 

 intrinsic characteristics, than that distinguished algologist appears to 

 have had when he wrote, perhaps from his not having always examined 

 living specimens, it is surely not very wonderful that it should be ne- 

 cessary, or at least that it should be advisable to redistribute certain 

 minor groups of them, agreeing in certain common characters, into other 



