A Criticism, and a Reply to Criticisms, 
BY 
F. 0 . BOWER, D.Sc., F.R.S. 
Regius Professor of Botany in the University of Glasgow. 
I N a recent number of the Annals of Botany 1 Professor 
Goebel has given an epitome 2 of his interesting observa- 
tions on the sexual generation of Buxbaumia , recognizing in 
it the simplest known type of a moss, and pointing out that it 
‘ very nearly comes up to the hypothetical ideal of the simplest 
primitive moss’ which he had suggested elsewhere 3 . I do 
not wish to contest the conclusion thus worded. Certain of 
the points brought forward should, however, suggest caution 
before accepting the above quotation as more than a plain 
statement of fact. When Professor Goebel proceeds (p. 357) 
to conclude ‘ that Buxbaumia is an ancient type of moss which 
still retains a number of primitive characters,’ he enters ground 
which is more open for debate : it will be necessary, before 
accepting this conclusion, to decide whether the characters 
upon which it is based are really relatively primitive or the 
result of reduction. 
There seems good reason to think that reduction has had 
its influence upon Buxbaumia : Professor Goebel himself draws 
attention to the absence of chlorophyll from the solitary pro- 
1 Vol. vi, No. 24, p. 355. 
2 For his more complete statement and figures, see Flora, 1892, p. 92, &c. 
3 Morphologische und biologische Studien, Annales du Jard. Bot. de Buitenzorg, 
I. vii, p. hi. 
[Annals of Botany, Vol. VII. No. XXVII. September, 1893.] 
