376 Bower. — A Criticism , and a 
organisms, I hold that that fact, when stripped of any unproved 
assumption, is in accordance with such theoretical considerations 
as were put forward in the paper which Professor Goebel has 
criticized. 
I would furthermore ask those who are disposed to disagree 
with me to bear in mind the opinions already expressed by me 
elsewhere 1 as to the probable relations of the Eusporangiate 
and Leptosporangiate Ferns. Though it is commonly held 
that the latter are the more primitive type, I have been led by 
careful consideration of the evidence to conclude that the pre- 
ponderance of evidence is in favour of the view that the Euspo- 
rangiates are the more ancient forms: this question, however is 
still an open one, but the opinions stated in the paper quoted 
will necessarily affect the questions now under discussion. 
Professor Goebel further remarks 2 that ‘ in Ophioglossum 
palmatum the sporophylls are still clearly recognizable as 
leaf-segments.’ This view has also been entertained by one 
of my English critics, both using it as an argument against 
the theory that the c fertile frond 9 of the Ophioglossaceae is 
an elaborated and partitioned sporangium, homologous with 
the smaller and non-partitioned sporangium of the Lycopods. 
I have carefully examined the numerous specimens in the 
herbarium at Kew, and write from previous knowledge of 
those in the British Museum : pending more detailed observa- 
tions on alcohol-material, I find, from external examination, the 
following difficulties in the way of accepting the apparently 
simple view above quoted : — 
(1) The arrangement of the ‘fertile spikes,’ when marginal, 
is indefinite, being neither regularly alternate, nor in pairs : 
this is, however, the usual arrangement for pinnae, including 
those of Botrychium. 
(2) Many of the ‘ fertile spikes ’ are inserted irregularly upon 
the adaxial stir face of the frond , not upon its margins. 
(3) The ‘fertile spikes’ branch in very irregular fashion, 
there being apparently no common rule, though this is usually 
the case for pinnae. 
1 Annals of Botany, vol. v. p. 109, &c. 2 Annals, loc. cit. p. 360. 
