PELEOPHYCE.E 69 



reserve-material in their protoplasmic contents points 

 farther to an incapacity for independent development. 

 The so-called zoospores of these species are almost as 

 much greater than these in size as the ciliated 

 oosphere of Cutleria is greater than its antherozoids. 

 Another aberrant species of Ectocarpus, viz. E. 

 pusillus Griff., 1 presents a difficulty of another kind. 

 The spores (at least those of the plurilocular spor- 

 angia) have no cilia, and are immobile. This latter 

 character does not really point to the Tilopteridaccw, 

 since the unilocular. sporangia of E. pnsillus contain 

 a number of spares, and, as has been seen, the uni- 

 locular bodies in Tilopteridacece have but one spore 

 (or oosphere, as the case may be). 



These difficulties primarily concern the classifica- 

 tion of Edocarpacecv, but their occurrence has a 

 special significance to those who desire to interpret 

 similar organs in the Tilopteridacece and neighbouring 

 groups. M. Bornet is disposed to give the first 

 place in such matters to the morphological characters 

 so strikingly alike in Ectocarpacece and Tiloptcridaccw, 

 and to retain these groups in proximity, pointing out 

 that the unilocular, inonosporous sporangia and the 

 form of the antheridia sufficiently distinguish them 

 from the Ectocarpacece. Whether we have to deal 

 with a unilocular, monosporous sporangium or with 

 an oogonium containing one oosphere in the Tilo- 

 frferidacece can only be settled by observation. 



This order is known only from the North Atlantic 

 (including Mediterranean) and Arctic Sea. Tilo- 



1 Not E. pusillus of Kiitzing, in which Goebel has observed 

 conjugation. The latter is properly called E. globifer, as Bornet 

 has shown. 



