Notes. 
i 76 
erste, der sie im Rbizom von Neottia nidus avis, Rich., fand.' He 
quotes the first volume of the ‘ Grundziige.' The first edition of this, 
which I have not at hand to refer to, was published in 1842. The 
second edition, which appeared in 1845, was translated by Dr. Lankester. 
Schleiden describes (p. 91) ‘fibres' which he observed in the cells of 
the subepidermal tissue of the roots. He concludes by remarking : 
‘ With respect to the real character of these peculiar formations, I have 
nothing at all to observe/ 
An earlier account of the now well-known occurrence of Mycorhiza 
in Monotropa Hypopitys , &c., is by an English botanist, Edwin Lees, 
and is contained in a botanical journal since extinct, the Phytologist 
for December, 1841. He gives what seems to me a pretty clear 
account of the external phenomena : — 
‘ The whole mass (of the roots) is obscured with a hirsuture that 
appears like a byssoid fungus. These hairy fibres, however, appear to 
me to be really part of the economy of the plant, imbibing nutriment 
from the rootlets of the Beech, to which they are closely affixed, and 
conveying it to the succulent radicles of the Monotropa, with which 
they are also connected ' (p. 100). 
This paper gave rise to an interesting discussion in which a number 
of botanists took part, including Wilson the bryologist, and Newman, 
the accomplished monographer of British Ferns, who had the assistance 
of Quekett. Newman concludes : ‘ The byssoid substance . . . 
I believe to be an intrinsic and most essential portion of the Monotropa, 
and is the part to which I have applied the term root ’ (p. 298). 
In the number for October, 1842, there is an important paper by 
Thos. E. Rylands, which seems to me to have been entirely overlooked. 
He arrives at ‘ the opinion that the “ byssoid substance " is really 
fungoid, and performs no essential function in the economy of the 
Monotropa! The curious thing is that he examined the roots of 
other plants, and remarks : ‘ The really fungoid matter found on the 
roots of Groundsel, Epilobium , Plantago, &c., had so much re- 
semblance to the substance in question, that it would be difficult by 
words to render the difference appreciative.' After consulting 
Mr. Berkeley as to the affinities of the fungus found on Monotropa, he 
describes and figures it as Lygodesmus Berkeleyi. 
Here the story stops as far as England is concerned. But it seems 
to me interesting to bring it into notice. It is a good illustration 
of the fact that accurate observation of even insignificant facts may 
