470 
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
The author further explains the terms “ Life History and Development/’ and 
in diagrams clearly shows the typical life-histories of a sexual plant and sexually 
produced animals. 
Finally, Chapter I. concludes with a comparative classification of plants and 
animals. 
In Chapter II. the living ceil, with its protoplasm, nucleus, etc., is tersely 
expounded. 
Chapters III. to X. contain the descriptions and life-histories of some of 
the lower plants and animals ; also diagrams of the sporangial and sexual 
reproduction of each genus, and each chapter is closed with a summary of the 
respective stages. The author begins with Glceocapsa, one of the lowest and 
simplest forms of plant-life. He then describes Oscillatoria, Hostoc, Yeast, 
Bacteria, etc. 
Chapter IY. is devoted to the Diatoms, Desmids, and Spirogyra. 
In Chapter Y. we have examples of the lowest animal types, as Chlamydo 
coccus, Pandorina, Eudorina, Yolvox, and others. Here it would not be amiss 
to introduce the interesting Protomyxa aurantiaca, which Professor Haeckel 
pronounces the lowest known animal, Yaucheria, and the fungi Mucor. 
Phytophthora, Saprolegnia, and Tilletia occupy the next chapter. 
In Chapter YII. examples of Algae and the genus Chara are brought 
forward. 
We note in the following chapter that Mr. M‘ Alpine accepts in its main 
point Professor Schwendener’s theory, viz., that the lichen is a compound 
organism, consisting of fungal and algal elements. This, it appears to us, is some- 
what premature. Although there seems to be a readiness to accept the position 
of Schwendener, yet many of the most eminent botanists decidely declare them- 
selves against it. Let us quote the Bev. M. J. Berkeley and Dr. M. C. Cooke: 
— “ Professer Schwendener first propounded his views in 1868, and then briefly 
and vaguely stated that all and every individual lichen was but an algal which 
had collected about it a parasitic fungal growth, and that those peculiar bodies 
which, under the name of gonidia, were considered as special organs of lichens, 
were only imprisoned algae. This hypothesis, ushered upon the world with all 
the prestige of the professor’s name, was not long in meeting with adherents, 
and the cardinal points insisted upon were : — First — That the generic relationship 
of the coloured gonidia to the colourless filaments which compose the lichen 
thallus had been assumed and not proved. Second — That the membrane of the 
gonidia was chemically different from the membrane of the other tissues, inasmuch 
as the first had a reaction corresponding to that of algae, whilst the second 
had that of fungi. Third — That the different forms and varieties of gonidia 
correspond with parallel types of algae. Fourth — That, as the germination of 
the spore had not been followed further than the development of a hypothallus, 
it might be accounted for by the absence of the essential algal on which the new 
organism should become parasitic. Fifth — That there is a striking correspon- 
dence between the development of the fructification in lichens and in some of 
the sporidiferous fungi (Pyrenomycetes).” 
These five points have been combated incessantly by lichen ologists, who 
would really be supposed by ordinary minds to be the most practically 
acquainted with the structure and development of these plants, in opposition 
to the theorists. Dr. E. Bornet, in his JEtdchercJies sur les G-onidies des Lichens , 
came to the aid of Schwendener, and almost exhausted the subject, but failed 
to convince either the lichenologist or mycologist. Dr. Nylander, in referring 
to this hypothesis of an imprisoned algal, writes: — “The absurdity of such an 
hypothesis is evident from the very consideration that it cannot be the case 
