408 
ALFRED W. BENNETT. 
Oyi the Classification of Cryptogams. ^ By Alfred W. 
Bennett, M.A., B.Sc., F.L.S., Lecturer on Botany at 
St. Thomases Hospital. 2. 
The classification of Cryptogams proposed in the fourth 
edition of Sachs's ‘ Lehrbuch der Botanik' — differing in 
some important points from that in the third edition, from 
which the English translation has been made — is an un- 
doubted index of a considerable advance in our knowledge 
of the relationships of the lower forms of flowerless plants. 
That it will in some points be modified as our knowledge 
further advances, its author would be the last to dispute; 
there are some other points to which I wish to call attention 
in the present paper, in which that distinguished botanist 
does not appear to me to have been so successful in pointing 
out natural affinities. 
The first group, the Thallophytes (including Characese), is 
divided by Sachs into four classes of equal rank, the Proto- 
phyta, Zygosporese, Oosporeae, and Carposporeae, abandoning, 
as a primary classification, the time-honoured distinction of 
Algae and Fungi. Few will be disposed to dispute the 
desirability of setting off the lowest forms from both the 
Algae and Fungi into a distinct class; and the Protophyta 
may with advantage be retained with the limits defined by 
Sachs. But, beyond this, it is doubtful whether the pro- 
posed change represents a nearer approach to a true phylo- 
genetic scheme. The supporters of the new classification 
point to that of Phanerogams as affording them powerful 
support. They say, with truth, that genera destitute of 
chlorophyll, like Orobanche, Balanophora, &c., are not 
separated into a distinct class of primary rank. But the 
cases are not parallel. Without going into the question of 
- whether these parasitic Phanerogams do contain chlorophyll 
or not, it may be pointed out that they are mostly isolated 
genera closely resembling well-known natural orders in all 
important points of structure. Were flowering plants divi- 
sible into two great series, one containing chlorophyll and 
autonomous, the other destitute of chlorophyll and parasitic, 
with very few points of resemblance or connecting links 
between the two, it is at least doubtful whether this would 
^ In the preparation of this paper I have had the most valuable assist- 
ance and co-operation of Mr. George Murray, my collaborator in our forth- 
coming ‘ Handbook of Cryptogamic Botany.’ 
2 at the Swansea Meeting of the British Association, Aug. 26tli, 
1880. 
