184 
Notes . 
out into a long protonema-like filament, with transverse septa, and 
numerous lateral rhizoid processes: the cells contain chlorophyll, 
and the whole resembles moss-protonema, though the filaments are 
coarser. Ultimately the filaments widen out into flat expansions of 
ribbon-like form, and may bear gemmae as above described : again, 
single marginal cells of these ribbon-like expansions may grow out as 
protonemal filaments similar to those produced from the parent frond. 
No antheridia or archegonia have as yet been observed on any of the 
outgrowths above described. 
We have here to deal with a very peculiar development, differing, 
I believe, from any hitherto described among the Hymenophyllaceae. 
In the first place it is to be noted that the gemmae correspond in 
structure and position to those described by Cramer : he ascribed 
those observed by him to one of the Hymenophyllaceae, a view which 
is supported by the recent observations of Goebel (1. c.). We now see 
in the Edinburgh plant the confirmation of this view, by the production 
of closely similar gemmae actually in connection with a specimen of 
Trichomanes alatum. But whereas Cramer’s gemmae were borne on 
a prothallus bearing sexual organs, those of the Edinburgh plant are 
produced on processes resulting from a direct outgrowth from the 
fern-plant. How then are we to view these processes? Are they 
prothalli produced in an aposporous manner? Notwithstanding the 
failure as yet to note sexual organs on these outgrowths, I am inclined 
to the opinion that this is actually the case : that in the Edinburgh 
plant we have a fresh example of apospory, associated with a forma- 
tion of gemmae, which, according to Goebel’s observations, is not an 
uncommon mode of reproduction of the prothalli of Ferns. It will 
remain for detailed observation of the cultures now in progress to 
show whether this view be correct or not : but whatever view of them 
be taken, the facts are sufficiently noteworthy to justify an early though 
incomplete record of them. 
F. O. BOWER, Glasgow. 
‘ COCO-NUT,’ NOT ‘ COCOA-NUT.’ — In the recent discussion 
of the subject of ‘ coco-nut’ pearls botanists have with wonderful 
unanimity written the word 4 cocoa-nut/ Although this is a spelling 
of some standing and is supported by the authority of several diction- 
aries it is none the less incorrect ; and as botanists should be above 
reproach in the matter of spelling of plant-names I may contribute to 
