108 
number marked merely Cad/. Dietzie, Hooper, appears to be the 
same thing, although much faded and not in especially good con- 
dition. No. 108, however, called also Dietzie, does not seem to 
me to belong to that species but to be rather C. dyssoideum. The 
fourth specimen is marked “cum fructu.” It is in reality sterile, 
and what was probably mistaken for fruit is nothing but the more 
densely colored chromatophor which is collected at the nodes. 
This specimen hardly can be referred to Deetsig, although it is 
too young and undeveloped to enable one to say exactly to what 
species it belongs. The two specimens from Herb. Hooper and 
that in Herb. Harvey appear tobe the only authentic originals in 
existence, and none of them have cystocarpic fruit. Ihave recently 
been able to examine again the specimen in Herb. Harvey, and 
although in my Marine Algze of New England, p. 127, it did not 
seem to me that I was warranted in trusting to my memory in 
expressing a decided opinion on a specimen which I had not seen 
for several years, a recent reéxamination only confirms the opinion 
which I originally formed, viz: that C. Dietzt@ is in reality a very | 
slender form of C. Baileyi, Harvey, rather than a distinct species 
related to C. corymbosum and C. versicolor, the view adopted by 
Harvey in the Nereis, ii, 236. JI have no doubt that several of my 
specimens of C. Baileyi var. laxa, collected at Wood’s Holl are 
identical with the originals of C. Dzetzi@ in Herb. Hooper. The 
great variability of C. Baileyz, well known to all who have collected 
largely on the New England coast, would hardly be suspected by 
those who have seen merely herbarium specimens. 
Two specimens marked Fucus canaliculatus, collected by Col. 
Pike, at Fort Hamilton and Astoria, were sent by Dr. Jelliffe. 
The specimens certainly had all the appearance of belonging to 
this species, although the conceptacles were so young that it was 
not possible for me to decide whether the structure was that of 
Pelvetia, in which genus the species is now placed by algologists. 
P. canaliculatus is a very common species of Europe, but has not 
yet been found with certainty in the United States. Whether it is 
possible that there is an error in localities as given by Col. Pike 
could, probably, be easily settled by Brooklyn algologists, for the 
species should be easily ith sori at Fort Hamilton by collectors 
at the present time. 
