42 
ANIMAL NATURE 
OF MYXOMYCETES. 
n 
Cienkowski in the works quoted, that would appear to substantially 
support tbe author’s views.” 
Competent, as Mr. Kent has shown himself to be, to deal with 
the Infusoria, it is much to be regretted that he should have gone 
out of the way to meddle with a subject which it requires only a 
perusal of what he has written to discover that he does not under- 
stand. It is quite unnecessary to do more than utter a protest 
against the assumptions of this author, inasmuch as mycologists 
will accept his opinions for what they are worth. Those who 'are 
7/0^ mycologists might perhaps be induced to accept what has been 
written as acknowledged science, instead of exploded theory, but 
for some such protest. 
It is quite true that De Bary wrote a book twenty years ago, in 
a hurry, and repented at leisure. He then believed in the animal 
nature of the Myxomycetes, or he thought that he did, which 
amounts to the same thing. In like manner he at first propounded 
the basis of the Swendenerian theory of Lichens, and then said no 
more about it. So also he opposed the discovery of the oogonia of 
the Peronospora, and believed them to be something else, as long 
as he could. Probably he now adheres to none of these three 
failures, because he has discovered at leisure that they are all 
fallacies. It is certain that he no longer holds the opinion that the 
Myxomycetes belong to the animal kingdom, but holds and teaches 
that they are veritable plants. Des[)ite of this, the theory pro- 
pounded twenty years ago, and since rejected by its author, Mr. 
Kent, says, “ The evidence most recently and independently 
eliminated by L. Cienkowski and Dr. de Bary concerning the 
structure and life history of this most remarkable group, establishes, 
however, beyond question, their purely animal nature f 
The italics are ours. Tlie assumption we deny. The animal 
nature of the Myxomycetes rests on similar and no better evidence 
than the animal nature of the zoospores, so common in alga?, or 
the animal nature of diatoms, and, therefore, beyond question ” 
has no place in the sentence. When those who are best acquainted 
with the Myxomycetes, such as the mycologists who have made 
them a special study, accept them as “ beyond question of a purely 
animal nature,” it will be time enough for those who are not prac- 
tically acquainted with these organisms, to assume such a dictum 
as “ beyond question.” To assert, in the face of all the best 
authorities in mycology, that “ the animal nature of Myxomycetes 
is “ beyond question,” is an assumption of superior intelligence of 
which no author of good taste would be guilty. 
Without waiting to enquire what this writer knows of the im- 
l)ortant Polish and Russian works on the Myxomycetes, which have 
appeared during the past twenty years, since they do not support 
his views, we would note the concluding paragraph of our extract 
from his work. It is clear from this that he has based his theory 
upon the figures which he has observed in illustrated books. Had 
he practically examined the organisms themselves he would have 
