1 1'. 



1 | his / i "> loc cit and Lamo roux his Udotea 



ipon the description, figure and habitat of Ellis and Solander, 



api ;t havii en specimens of the plant. And Lamouroux al least does not 



em to ha\ identity of th<- plant, for he gave 1 1 1 < - name <>f U. conglutinata to 



a . '\ is U. flabellata. It is labelled in Lamouroux's handwriting and a 



phi ^ in the Herbarium of the British Museum. 



• failed to realise the difference between U. conglutinata and U. flabellata 



icription of U. flabellata clearly and trui) represents that species, yet in 



he includes Flabellaria conglutinata of Lamarck, which as shown above is the 



vata of the present day. Further he cites in his synonymy of U. flabellata 



lowii "Corallina Sol. el Eli. ]>. 125 t. 24". The omitted specific name is pre- 



|y intended to In- conglutinata since the dash is placed immediately under the specific 



nam " ., 'utinala" used in the * Flabellaria conglutinata Lmk." in the preceding line). On 



the other hand Decaisne cites also the tab. 24 of Ellis and Solander which represents the 



truc f 'lata of the present day. Thus Decaisni evidently confused Ellis and Solander's 



two spe» 



('. conglutinata has often been confounded with U. cyathiformis Dccne. and the fun- 

 damental differences between the two species were never defined satisfactorily until the publi- 

 tion of I 'r. M. A. Howe's observations in Buil. Torrey Hot. Club XXXVI. 1909 pp. 94 97. 

 Dr. Howi has collected plants of both species representing successive stages of growth and 

 reproduces a most instructive series of photographs (loc. cit. plates 2. 3) in illustration, which 

 prove that from quite an early stage typical U. cyathiformis is infundibuliform, and U. con- 

 glutinata is flabellate. 



We have at times had difficulty in distinguishing herbarium specimens of these two 

 species in consequence of the variability of the habit and structure in each. But we are inclined 

 to regard the following as the most useful characters lor discriminating between tin- two species. 

 In ' '. conglutinata the frond is plane (fig. 44), non-fissile, the filaments being matted 

 and conglutinated together; the stipes is flattened above and passes gradually and cuneately 

 into the flabellate frond: the base of the frond is covered with a cortical coating of short 

 lateral appendages (fibulae), and the upper part usuallv has a tomentulose nap-like surface. 

 The felting of the filaments is due to their much-repeated dichotomies ; and the nap-like 

 surface is due to the short, tortuous, and often somewhat divaricate ultimate branchlets isee 

 Howe op. cit. p. 



In U. cyathiformis the frond of typical specimens is cup-shaped (fig. 2) (in dried spe- 

 cimens the frond is liable to be expanded and flattened out, thus losing its hollow shape) ; in 

 typical specimens the stipes is cylindrical throughout and passes abruptly into the frond, and 

 th« of the frond is destitute of corticating fibulae; the frond is fissile and its surface is 



fibrous, or resembles coarse appressed nap. The lateral appendages of the stipes bear terminal 

 cymo iups of minute capitate apices similar to that shown in fig. 8 6). 



U. cyathiformis in its typical infundibuliform state is quite distinct and easily recognised. 

 ition is complicated by the existence of plants with an explanate frond. These 



