% 
4 
= 
_ TERMINOLOGY OF REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS OF PLANTS. 33 
is to say alternation of a sexual with a gemmiparous stage. 
I know of nothing comparable to the sporangium and 
contained spores in the life-history say of Obelia or other 
representative type of the Hydromeduse. Indeed the 
metagenesis of such animal forms finds I think its exact 
homologue in the peculiar and abnormal phenomenon 
known as ‘‘apospory,” illustrated by some Ferns, and 
artificially produced in Mosses by Pringsheim and Stahl. 
The process is defined by Bower* as ‘“‘a transition by 
direct vegetative process and without the assistance of 
spores, from the sporophore to the oophore.”’ Since then 
the homology breaks down, I would retain these two 
terms, sporophyte and gamophyte, as peculiarly applicable 
to plant life-history, and distinguish the alternation of 
generations in plants from metagenesis in animals. 
Mr. Myles, in a review of Bennett and Murray’s 
“Handbook,” in the Journal of Botany, offers a number 
of useful criticisms, and suggests a schema of his own. 
After an expression of dissent from the views of Bennett 
and Murray, on the anglicising of Latin and Greek 
names, and a congratulatory sentence on the service 
these authors have done ‘‘in rescuing the word spore from. 
the inconvenient extension given it by Vines,’ Mr. Myles 
proceeds to protest against the rejection of the term 
‘“‘spermatozoon”’ and the new use of the synonym sperm 
as likely to produce ‘‘ gratuitous confusion’’—an opinion 
in which I heartily concur. 
Tam afraid I cannot follow Mr. Myles in his proposal 
to use the term ‘‘o0n”’ instead of ‘“‘oosperm.” If o6n is 
merely the Greek equivalent for egg, it by no means 
follows that it signified a fertilized egg even in that 
* “On Apospory and Allied Phenomena.” Trans. Linn. Soc., 2nd ser. 
Bot., vol. ii., pt. 14, p. 301. 
+ Jour. of Bot., Sept., 1889. 
