278 NATTJEAL HIST0EY SOCIETY OF DUBLIN. 



sified phases, whilst others (as our Mesotamium and Cylindrocystis) 

 seem to be in this respect more restricted, is not, I think, in either 

 case an argument that Protophyta, or even some Palinellaceae, may not he 

 subject to specific limits, not to speak of a change from one kingdom 

 to another. With Dr. Hicks I must indeed wholly coincide, that in 

 the study of the Protophyta it is especially desirable that the history of 

 each be, as far as possible, made out, in order to discover the mature 

 forms, and to trace out the seeming chauges through which they may 

 pass ; but is not this, after all, in other words, to endeavour to find 

 out what are the species and their limits, and to learn to discriminate 

 between them ? But, assuredly, were all this known, many spurious 

 " species" would have to be erased, at least among certain types. But, 

 whatever phases they may run through, they at least must revert 

 eventually to the parent or type-form ; for the same forms turn up and 

 vanish again and again, and season after season, each in its own kind 

 of situation or habitat ; and it seems more reasonable that we should 

 suppose — be the intermediate phases what they may — that these would 

 naturally begin and end their cycles in themselves, than that all the 

 many well-defined types and well-marked forms, some more and some 

 less frequently recurring, included under " Palmellacece," should need 

 constant recruiting by the transmutation of lichen-gonidia and moss- 

 spores. Perhaps the truth on some of the questions lies in the mean ; 

 but, be it as it may, I trust I am not too firmly attached to the views I 

 have tried to express not to relinquish them on good evidence. Mean- 

 time, in the words of Dr. Wallich, I at least hold with him, that — " In 

 science, as in governments, truth can never be arrived at on a large scale 

 unless under pressure of an opposition." 



The following letter from R. H. Scott, Esq., Hon. Secretary to the 

 Royal Geological Society of Ireland, was afterwards read : — 



" Department of Natural History, Royal Dublin Society. 



" Kildare-street, April 27, 1865. 



" Dear Sir, — Dr. Moore tells me that he mentioned the fact of my finding a laurel- 

 berry in the crop of a Pheasant, at the last meeting of your Council, and that he said he 

 would ask me to read a notice of it at your meeting. The facts are so simple, that I shall 

 here give you the whole which I have to say about it. The contents of the crop of a 

 Pheasant, which was found dead, were sent to me for examination for poison. They 

 consisted of a quantity of oats, and of a large berry, which was afterwards proved to be 

 a laurel-berry. I could not discover any poisonous material in the oats ; but on putting the 

 berry, on which the outside capsules were loose, into water, a very strong smell of hydro- 

 cyanic acid was at once developed, and in fact I was able to prove the presence of this acid 

 in the cold extract by means of chemical tests. The berry, which I shall be happy to send 

 you, appears to be beginning to germinate; and, in default of any other sufficient cause, I 

 am disposed to consider that its presence was the cause of death. 



" Your obedient servant, 



" William Archer, Esq." " Robert H. Scott. 



Dr. Moore stated that the substance of the foregoing letter had been 

 mentioned to him some days ago by Mr. Scott, and the fruit which had 

 been found in the crop of the Pheasant forwarded to him ; he had 



