the Dillenian Herbarium. 105 
the fourth, a species different from all the rest, and, we believe, 
not at present described. 
12. C. albida. Fl. Ang.—T)r. Roth, in the 2d volume of his Ca- 
talecta Botanica, quotes this plant as a variety of his Ceramium 
tomentosum, for which he refers to the following number; and 
he observes, that it has at first sight a strong resemblance to his 
C.nitens (No. 7«) : both which remarks, with all due deference to 
so truly able a botanist, I must, on the authority of the Herbarium 
itself, pronounce unfounded. 
13. All authors have agreed in referring to this number as C. to- 
mentosa, and it appears by the description to be intended for that 
plant: but the specimens, though bad, seemed evidently, to Mr. 
"Woods and me, to be only C. littoralis, with a somewhat more 
rusty hue than usual. 
14. C. reticulata. 
15. Of this there are eight specimens, none of them sufficiently 
good to allow a positive opinion to be passed upon them : they 
appeared to us nothing more than a short variety of C. amphibia. 
I need hardly observe that this number is the C. canalicularis of 
Linnaeus, or that the following number 
16. is C. rigida. Fl. Aug. — This I had expected to find a variety 
of C.fracta ; but it more resembles C. glomerata, much battered, 
and incrusted with calcareous matter. 
17. C.J rigida. Roth. — There are three specimens, none of them 
good, but all the same plant; so that it may be questioned if Dr. 
Roth was not mistaken in his remark, that Dillenius confounded 
this plant with C. amphibia, and in consequently referring only 
IV. 17- A. to C.frigida, but B. and C. to amphibia. 
18. This appeared to us a minute variety of C.fracta, gathered 
while growing upon stones ; but we beg to be understood as speak- 
ing with more than usual diffidence on this subject. 
vol. vii. p 19. C.littoralis. 
