66 Scientific Intelligence. 
of the peteaae and still more strange that in nature these various 
Alge oc r without any further result; 3, because any a rms of 
are, he thinks, not ie. , but free lichen -gonidia. Thirdly, he 
maintains that Hichiiae are not evidences of parasitism, because the 
onidia are in no way debilitated, diseased, or destroyed by their 
contact with the hyphe, but on the contr rary ‘derive from it nourish- 
ment and growth, and if this view were ‘beg ne there would re- 
reo as om Fries had already observed, in Lichenographia Scandi- 
, an incredible double and mutual atest of hyphe — 
in aa a and of gonidia upon hyphx 
In conclusion, Dr. Koerber gives his own views in regard to the 
anatomy of Lichens. He agrees with Schwendener that the go- 
nidia are not produced from the hyphe of the thallus, but regards 
the connection of the two as a simple process of nourishment. 
re rt 
ment, to come in contact with the form of gonidia belonging to 
their own species. He asserts that the spores of some Lichens, as 
in the genus Sphoortin hale, which has muriform spores, do not 
— hyphe, but gonidia of the kind called microgonidia or 
stir cde ag and fin nally =a several different methods, ac- 
cording to which, in his opinion, the lichen thallus may be pro 
duced by ‘asvishualie gonidia (soredia 
Dr. Krempelhiiber, in a notice of this essay in Flora for March 
11, observes that Koerber’s hypothesis has not much better found- 
ation than Schwendener’s, with tiger it has much in common. 
If the observations in regard to the spores of species of Sphwrom- 
phale are confirmed, he thinks sion against Schwendener; and 
that, if Koerber’s arguments and observations are not conclusive 
against Schwendener’s hypothesis, they tend to render it still more 
9 ae able. 
n the other a 2 Flora for March 21, 1875, “aa ve 
from those of other ‘Ascomycetee tw, and that his observations go to 
confirm Schwendener’s theory. His in investigations are to be con- 
tinued. a Ww. 
