the Dillenian Herbarium. 107 
30. Ccramium asperum. Both. — The learned author of the Ca- 
talecta Botanica quotes No. 28. to this plant with a mark of doubt ; 
but the specimens of the present number exactly agree with those 
he was so kind as to send me. 
31. C. glomerata. Linn. 
32. C. vagabunda. Linn. 
33. C. sericea. Fl. Aug. 
34. A small variety of the preceding, as Dr. Roth has justly 
considered it in the second volume of the Catalecta Botanica : in 
the first he has adduced it as a synonym to his C. mutabilis, but 
erroneously, as my friend Mr. Dilhvyn has already stated in his 
account of that plant. 
35. From the difference in Dillenius's three figures of this plant, 
it is singular that no author has observed that he has blended 
two distinct species under it. His Herbarium shows that A. is a 
small variety of C. rubra; B. and C. are C.polymorpha; D., which 
is not mentioned in the Historia Muscorum, is another variety of 
rubra. 
36. C. corallinoides. Linn. 
37- C. setacea. Fl. Aug. — Dr. Roth has referred this, with a mark 
of doubt, to the " var. (2. atro-purpurea" of his C. diaphana : it 
must at the same time be admitted that the Dillcnian figure is 
far from good. 
38. It is well conjectured in theCatalecta Botanica that A. and J>. 
must be different species ; but it would hardly be possible to sus- 
pect, what appears from the Herbarium, that the former is C. ru- 
bra, the latter Fucus subfuscus. Dr. Roth has erroneously referred 
this number to his Ceramium elongatutn (C. elongata, VI. Aug.), and 
still more erroneously quoted C. nodulosa as a synonym. 
39. This plant, the C. tubulosa, Fl. Aug., appears to be only an 
unusually thick variety of C rubra, as was suggested to me many 
p 2 years 
