372 
Bower . — A Criticism , and a 
of both, to similar external circumstances, rather than depen- 
dent upon primitive characters which they have had in common 
throughout their evolution. 
I have elsewhere remarked 1 that the method of comparison 
of vegetative characters of the gametophyte, which Professor 
Goebel has adopted in treating plants so divergent in 
character as the mosses and ferns, is at variance with the 
methods commonly in use in the classification of phanero- 
gamic plants. In these the conformation of the vegetative 
organs is usually treated as a secondary consideration, while 
the characters of the reproductive organs are given the 
precedence. Professor Goebel, however, appears to place the 
vegetative organs in the foreground of his argument, and 
attaches importance to their external form and structure, 
notwithstanding the entire dissimilarity of the sporophyte in 
the plants compared, and even the important difference of 
their archegonia. How cautious it is necessary to be in 
trusting to the vegetative conformation of the gametophyte 
in archegoniate plants is illustrated in the genus Lycopodium : 
here, without any marked difference of type of the sporo- 
phyte. the sexual plant varies within very wide limits of 
form, though the sexual organs remain essentially constant. 
The difference between the prothalli of L. annotinmn , of 
L. cernuum and of L. Phlegmaria has been sufficiently 
demonstrated and remarked upon by M. Treub 2 , while he 
specially points out the similarity of their sexual organs as 
regards structure and development. Such considerations 
make me doubt the wisdom of so far departing from the 
methods in general use among the higher plants as to press 
comparisons, based on similarity of vegetative conformation, 
in plants which show marked dissimilarity in other parts of 
such importance as the archegonia and the whole sporophyte 
generation. The fact that the organisms in question are lower 
in the scale does not appear to me a sufficient justification 
of this method. 
1 Annals of Botany, vol. v. p. 1 20. 
2 Ann. Jard. Bot. d. Buitenzorg, v. p. 88, &c. 
