DR. MINKS ON THE STRUCTURE OP LICHENS. 
49 
to that of fungi, that, consequently, no homogenousness of the 
hyphaj in both plants does exist, falls into that inconceivable con- 
tradiction of making me say that, as regards systematic botany, 
the gonidia are the criterion of the two great vegetable kingdoms. 
According to my explication, if we shall be enabled to conceive 
a vegetable form as a lichenic one, we have not to prove the 
presence of gonidia in its body, but of microgonidia in its cells, 
we have to search for the hyphema, etc. ; in short, to demonstrate 
that it is subject to quite other laws than the fungus, in its vegeta- 
tive and reproductive life. In the whole train of argument, the 
criterion, consisting in the presence of the microgonidia, is the 
most simple and commodious, so that the very tyro or dilettante 
may he expected to make himself familiar with it. In future, at 
least, an examination of the cells of the fructification, paraphyses 
and thecae, with their spores, must by all means take place. 
Anticipating that the readers of my letter would have the well- 
done plates of my work before their eyes, Lreferred to them, espe- 
cially to the last plate, under the firm conviction that a glance 
must inform any botanist a little acquainted with the structure of 
the concerned parts of what, in verbal translation I pronounced. 
It may be seen that the thecaspore cannot at all be the product of 
intracellular free formation,* for the microgonidia contained in all 
the cells of the fructifying parts are equally here in morphological 
activity, from the commencement to the end. The origination of 
the spores reposes on simple metamorphoses of cells of ready hyph^ 
containing microgonidia, and if no metamorphosis ensues, the 
hyphae become and remain what is called paraphyses. 
It was properly I, the discoverer and author, whom alone it 
might be allowed to give such a brief epitome — as it were, the 
quintesceiice of my workf — since its real tendency could and should 
be no other than to direct the attention of the French public to 
these novelties. Should the same end be reached among the 
English public, of course an uncurtailed translation of my letter 
ought to have been given, but still more, two anticipations ought 
to have been answered : that the reader of my French letter 
had also read all the publications in that journal on my lichenolo- 
gical discoveries, and that an understanding of my paper without 
a contemporary inspection of the figures of my work — the most 
important of which are even cited — is hardly to be obtained. 
iVJr. Phillips does not fulfil these anticipations — for he even 
neglects meutioning that my letter insists on them. With him I 
complain that the same space (insignificant as it is) which the 
“ Revue Mycologique ” has afforded, was not allowed for his im- 
portant communication. Already my letter, reduced in your 
* Mr. Phillips makes me say, that the thecaspore is onlxj the product of 
free intercellular formation. 
t “ Das Micrngonidium. Ein Beitrag zur Keuntniss des wahren Wesens 
der Flechten.” Basle (H. Georg), 1879, with 6 col. plates. 
