104 Mr. Turner's Remarks upon 
C. limosa of Dillwjn : but we have great reason to lament Dille- 
nius's not having preserved the latter, as Hudson's C. furcata 
depends* solely upon it. 
7. A very narrow variety of Ulva compressa, quite bleached. Dr. 
Koth refers to this number for the C. nitens of his Catalecta Bota- 
nica; but the plant there intended must, according to his descrip- 
tion, for I have never seen a specimen, be a widely dissimilar 
species. It may be worth remarking that he, by a typographical 
error, quotes " II. 6." instead of " II. 7." 
8. C.fceniculacea. FL Ang. — From the specimens, of which 
there are three in the Dillenian Herbarium, this is a Fucus, and 
one that I believe to be not yet described. 
9. C. dichotoma. Linn. 
10. Hudson, the only author who appears to have mentioned 
this No., has quoted it as the (3. of his C. furcata: there are three 
specimens, one of which is C. fra'cta, Fl. Dan. ; a second C. am- 
phibia; and a third what we suppose to be a small variety of 
C. dichotoma. 
11. Of this plant, the so much contested C. bullosa, which every 
botanist believes he knows, but of the existence of which, as a 
single species, I greatly doubt, there are two papers. The first 
contains four specimens ; three of them, in an unexpanded state, 
are so bad that it would be idle to conjecture what they are : the 
fourth is Dr. Roth's C. divaricata var. (3. elongata. On the other 
paper are also four specimens, two of which, quite bleached, may 
be referred to almost any thing; the third is C.jugalis, Fl. Dan.; 
* Unless, indeed, of which I am not aware, Hudson should have given specimens 
to any of his friends. What I have hitherto seen and received under the name of C. fur- 
cata leads me to coincide with a remark made by that able botanist Dr. Goodenough, 
that it is probably only the first stage of C. dichotoma, or a small variety. 
the 
