182 MESSRS. W. WEST AND G. S. WEST ON 
Long. sine proc. 29-32 p, cum proc. 33-38:5 4; lat. cum proc. 31-34, sine proc. cire, 
13-15 A s lat. isthm. 6:5 n. 
Hab. With the preceding species. 
This variety is readily distinguished from the typical form by the somewhat different 
form of the semicells and the peculiar nature of the processes. The latter are nodulose 
on the lower surface and on the lateral margins, but quite plane on their upper surface, 
and they are entirely devoid of rings of granules or dentieulations except at the apex. 
The vertical view of all the examples seen was six-radiate. | 
Staurastrum pseudozonatum, Borge (in Bih. K. Sv. Vet.-Akad. Handl. xxiv. Afd. 3, 
no. 12, 1899, p. 30, t. 2. fig. 47), and S. asteroideum, West & G. S. West, are similar 
species of somewhat the same nature. 
239. STAURASTRUM ASTEROIDEUM, West & G. S. West, in Trans. Linn. Soz., ser. 2, Bot. 
v. 1896, p. 263, t. 17. fig. 5. 
Forma processibus validis et paullo brevioribus. Long. 21,4; lat. cum proe. 25; lat, 
isthm. 6 Ji 
Hab. Paddyfield between Kosgoda and Urahaighasmahendai. 
240. STAURASTRUM PINNATUM, W. B. Turn. in K. Sv. Vet.- Akad. Handl. xxv. 1893, no. 5, 
p. 115, t. 13. fig. 27. 
Var. SUBPINNATUM, nob. Staurastrum subpinnatum, Schmidle, in Flora, Ixxxii. 1896, 
. p. 911, t. 9. fig. 20. 
Long. 30,4; lat. sine proc. 15 4, cum proc. 34-40 u ; lat. isthm. 8 Bn, - (Pl. 91. 
fig. 33.) 
Hab. Paddyfields, Heneratgodha. 
Turner’s figures of S. pinnatum are very indistinct and inaccurate. Schmidle says his 
S. subpinnatwm is primarily distinguished * das nur oberhalb am Grunde jedes der sechs 
radialen Arme je zwei Kurze abgestutzte Prominenten sich befinden”; but this applies 
equally well to S. pinnatum, as Turner says in his description “apicibus (apud basin 
processuum) 12 pinnatis, pinnis crenato-emarginatis.” Turner distinctly shows these 
twelve emarginate verruc:e as arising above the bases of the processes in his figure of the 
vertical view (t. 13. fig. 274); his oblique figure (fig. 276), in which he shows the 
verrucze as arising beneath the bases of the processes, is quite wrong. He falls into 
the same error in his figure of S. pinnatum, var. simplex (t. 13. fig. 20 b). His figure 
of the front view of S. pinnatum is wholly inaccurate and almost worthless. 
Schmidle’s S. subpinnatum only differs from S. pinnatum in the smooth basal region of 
the semicells possessing a basal ring of granules, and in the ring of twelve granules at the 
apices of the semicells. Our specimens also possessed these peculiarities, but they a are 
not sufficient to separate the plant as a distinct species from S. pinnatum. ` 
The length of the processes of S. pinnatum, var. subpinnatum, varies very much, and 
also the number of rings of denticulations on each process varies from about two to four 
or five. 
