108 Mr. Turner's Remarks upon 
years since by Col. Velley. There is a smaller specimen, marked 
"junior" which may be a distinct species, but is much bleached. 
40. C. diaphana. Fl. Scot. — T cannot doubt but C. nodulosa, 
Fl. Aug. is the same plant. 
41. C. purpurascens. Fl. Ang. 
42. C. gelatinosa. Linn. 
43. A small variety of the same. 
44. C. mutabilis. Roth. 
45. This has always been considered an alpine variety of C. ge- 
latinosa ; but some specimens I gathered last summer in Llyn 
Fynnon Velan, an alpine lake on Snowdon, where I had an oppor- 
tunity of examining it recent, lead me strongly to suspect it will 
prove a distinct species. 
46. C. atra. Fl. Ang. 
47- C.Jluviatilis. Linn. 
48. C. torulosa. Roth.- — Is it really distinct from the preceding? 
TREMELLJE. 
No. 1. Ulva lactuca. Linn. 
2. The same var. Q>. Fl. Ang. — Very different from U. lubrica of 
Roth, to Avhich it is referred in the Catalecta Botanica. 
3. U. umbilicalis. Linn. 
4. There is no specimen of this in the Herbarium ; but, both 
from the description and figure, it cannot be doubted that 
Dr. Roth is right in referring it to his U. plantaginea. 
Of o. and 6*. the labels are evidently transposed ; that which 
ought to bear the former comprises eight specimens of U. linza, 
Fl. Dan., their apices turned downwards, and curiously placed 
together so as to look like a base, their roots all pointing upward. 
This is not badly represented in the figure. Of No. (>. there are 
two 
