50 
DR. MINKS ON THE STRUCTURE OF LICHENS. 
journal nearly to one-third of its extent, could and should not 
pretend to make a satisfactory extract of my book, for which I 
published in “ Flora,” 1878, Nos. 14-20, a much more compre- 
hensive treatise. But neither this restriction of the intention of 
tlie eminent English fungist, nor his consideration of the circum- 
stance that I was “ not writing in my native language, hut more 
especially on account of my views being quite novel, and subversive 
of our preconceived notions of the morphology and physiology of 
lichens,” seems to have caused him to fall into so striking an op- 
position to words of my paper. If with consideration of the 
narrow space, a reproduction of my paper should be given, in so 
much as it interests the fungists and the followers of the Schwen- 
denerian doctrine, this end could be reached by uniting all the most 
essential passages into a uniform representation. 
If we consider that the definition hitherto accepted of lichens, 
as it heads a well-known work of recent date, sounds “ Plantae 
cellulares thallo gonidiifero praeditae sporasque libera generatione 
ortas in ascis foventes,” and that the entire intention of my com- 
prehensive work was to overthrow that definition, a solemn protesta- 
tion from my part against the statements ascribed to me will appear 
well justified. One will even wonder how to Mr. Phillips my new 
facts could appear as very theories, after he had raised the 
suspicion that I had stated such wanton utopias. 
The English public will finally partake of my conviction that a 
detailed exposition of my new doctrine in English is now still 
more urgently required, and lend their assistance to its apparition 
in every way, for which purpose I recommend to translate the 
paper published in“ Flora ” 1878, l.c., under omission of the con- 
cluding words and certain notes. As such a translation would 
extraordinarily gain by the citation of figures of my exhaustive 
work, I declare myself ready for promoting its execution. 
Beseeching you to print the above lines in the next number of 
your journal, I remain, sir, yours most respectfully, 
’ l3r. A. Minks. 
P.S. — I am hoping that my paper will not contain thus much 
errata as that of Mr. Phillips. 
Note on the Above, by W. Phillips. 
I strongly disclaim any intention of misrepresenting the opinions 
of Dr. Minks in the brief abstract of his paper, of which he com- 
plains, and I am glad that he undertakes to correct any errors into 
which 1 might have fallen, as there is nothing more to be wished 
than a clear exposition of his theories. I trust, however, that 
your readers will derive more light from his communication above 
than I am able to do. 
