178 H0FME1STER, ON 



the interior of the archegonium ('Trans. Linn. Soc./ 

 vol. xvii, p. 465). He succeeded in detaching this 

 cell (p. 406). He recognised it also in archegonia, whose 

 apices were still closed, but failed to discover it in Bryum 

 roseum, which in England often bears healthy archegonia, 

 but rarely fruit. He describes the development of the 

 rudimentary cell of the fruit as follows. " Soon after the 

 opening of the upper extremity of the style, another cell is 

 formed on the upper surface of the first. The two adhere 

 firmly, and may be dissected together. Presently another 

 cell is formed, either on the upper surface of the second, or 

 on its side ; then appears another, and so on. * * The 

 base "of the style increases not by distension, but by 

 addition of fresh matter. * * The fusiform mass within 

 passes its conical extremity deeper and deeper into this 

 tissue, until at last it reaches the branch itself." Valentine 

 observed further that after the separation of the calyptra 

 from the vaginula, the seta increased in growth only at the 

 apex, and he figures accurately the separation of the outer 

 capsule- wall from the inner, by the formation of an annular 

 intercellular space. 



Strange to say these observations of Valentine have 

 remained to this day wholly unknown in Germany and 

 France. They are not mentioned by De Candolle 

 (' Organographie vegetale,' ed. ii, vol. ii, p. 146) ; 

 Treviranus (' Pflanzenphysiol,' vol. ii, p. 46) ; Meyen 

 ('System d. Pnauzenphys./ vol. hi, p. 385); Schleiden 

 (' Grundziige,' ed. ii, vol. ii, p. 68) ; or P. W. Schim- 

 per ('Rech. sur les Mousses/ p. 67). I was myself 

 ignorant of them when I published my observations upon 

 the subject in 'Botan. Zeit./ 1849, p. 798, and in the 

 'Vergleichende Untersuchungen/ p. 69, Mohl in 

 Wagner's ' Haudworterbuch der Physiol,' vol. iv (1853), 

 p. 279; P. W. Schimper, 'Mem. sur les Sphaignes (1859), 

 p. 10; and Gottsche, 'Botan. ZehV (1858), supplement, 

 p. 42, make no mention of Valentine's discoveries. 

 Valentine himself was far from appreciating the importance 

 of his own observations. He expressly disputes Hedwig's 

 views of the sexuality of mosses. He says " If sexes are 

 to be found in mosses they must be sought in the theca 



