Notes on Recent Literature. 
79 
picture of the system, founded mainly upon the work of Klebs, 
Bohlin and Luther, as is suggested by this comparison. In 
instituting such a comparison, Wille lays himself open to the 
suspicion that he has lost sight of the conception underlying the 
formation of the groups Isokontae, Heterokontae, etc., in regarding 
only that which is actually expressed in the names chosen for them ; 
and it is to be noticed that he speaks of the system as though it 
were founded, not, as it is, upon the characters of the zoospore as 
a whole, but upon the ciliation only. 
If the derivation of the Green Algae from the Flagellates be 
accepted, as it is by Wille, surely the characters of the zoospore— 
the state in which the Alga presumably resembles most nearly its 
ancestral Flagellate type—must be of the greatest importance. 
Yet Wille’s natural abhorrence of a system founded, as he appears 
to suppose, upon the single character of ciliation, leads him almost 
to the point of disregarding the characters of the zoospore entirely. 
That at least seems to be the position he takes up when he 
distributes forms like the Chlorothecieae, Mischococcus and its allies, 
and Botrydium, among the orders of the Protococcales and reunites 
Biwiilleria and Conferva with the Ulotrichaceae. Yet, while taking 
this course, Wille admits that the Botryococcaceae (Mischococceae 
and Botryococceae) may be derived from the Chrysomonadina, in 
which case they would be looked upon as forming a series parallel 
to the Tetrasporaceae. Such an admission surely leaves very slender 
justification for including them on phylogenetic grounds with forms 
derivable from an ancestral type resembling the Polyblepharidaceae. 
Fully as we recognize the authority with which Wille is entitled 
to speak upon these matters, we feel that in this case his modifica¬ 
tions have reduced a group hitherto consisting of organisms whose 
inter-relations were comparatively clear, to a state which, relatively 
speaking, renders it a collection of more or less heterogeneous forms. 
Athough Wille’s introductory remarks on the validity of the 
Heterokontae are sufficiently strong, it is possible that the differences 
between his attitude and that of recent writers is a little over¬ 
emphasised by the arrangement he adopts, for, as we have said 
above, he admits the possibility of an independent origin for the 
Botryococcaceas, and by doing so admits also in some degree the 
cogency of the arguments for the separation of the Heterokontae 
from the Isokontae. As regards the Akontae, the name was in its 
origin merely the logical completion of the system of nomenclature 
adopted for the classes of the Green Algae, and, with perhaps the 
exception of Oltmanns, who includes the Diatoms in his “ Acontae ” 
(would that algologists could be persuaded to strive a little more 
effectively for some uniformity of spelling!) no one, we imagine, 
will be very greatly disturbed if Wille prefers the older name of 
Conjugatae. Finally, the remaining group, the Stephanokontae, is 
generally admitted to be very doubtfully good in the absence of any 
corresponding Flagellate and intermediate forms. 
For the rest, we notice with pleasure that Wille deprecates 
the too ready granting of generic or specific rank to forms whose 
claims are only doubtfully established. That this tendency should 
continually present itself is inevitable, since the worker who is in 
the closest touch with any group of organisms cannot fail to be 
