99 



In his original diagnosis of Penicillus oólongus (loc. cit.) Decaisne says "Hab. in 

 Antillis (Bahama). (Herb. Mus. Par.)". Unfortunately there does not appear to be any specimen 

 in the Paris Herbarium bearing the name of P. oblongus. There is however a plant which 

 exactly answers to Decaisne's diagnosis ; but to it has been attached a label in Decaisne's 

 own MS. which says: "Penicillus Lamourouxii Dne. Bahama". This specimen (hg. 189), as 

 has been shown under P. Lamourouxii (p. 80), is not ihat species. It is in fact without doubt, 

 we think, Decaisne's actual type of P. oblongus, but with a wrong label attached to it. It 

 bears out Decaisne's diagnosis in having the comal filaments ("articuli") flabellately arranged 

 as in R. phoenix, and thicker than in that species, "nee in lamellis arcte connati" ; the 

 "articuli" are indeed entirely free from one another (fig. 190) and not "subliberi" as stated 

 by Decaisne. We feel absolutely justified in accepting this plant as Decaisne's type. 



Having only a dried and pressed specimen, Decaisne naturally overlooked the charac- 

 teristic apical hollow, which is nevertheless present in it. 



Single specimens of this species were found by us in Herb. Lamouroux and Herb. 

 Chauvin under the name "Nesea Penicillus var.", both from "Banc de Bahama" but without 

 any collector's name. They are so much alike, that they were probably gathered at the same time. 



The geographical distribution of R. oblongus, as known at present, is conhned to the 

 Bahama Islands. 



13. Udotea Lamouroux. 

 (Pigs. 1 — 28, 36—68). 



H i s t o r i c a 1 . 



The earliest record of a plant of this genus is in Sloane's Natural History of Jamaica, 

 1707. vol. I. p. 62, where Udotea flaóellum is confused with Padina Pavonia, both these plants 

 being included under the following description : "XXXII. Fucus maritimus gallo pavonis pennds 

 "referens, C. B. Prod. p. 155. Cat. p. 5. This grows sticking to the Stones in the bottom of 

 "the Sea, whence it is thrown on Shore in several places about Port Royal ; and of it there is 

 "a variety, with thicker and whiter Leaves, which is nothing but an incrustation of a Coralline 

 "white matter over it." The variety here mentioned is U.flabellum as is shown by an examination 

 of the original plants in the Sloane Herbarium, preserved in the British Museum. 



The next reference of interest is to U. conglutinata and U. flaóellum. Ellis & Solander 

 give excellent figures and descriptions of these plants under the names Corallina conglutinata 

 and C. Flaóellum in their "Natural History of Zoophytes", 1786, pp. 124, 125, tab. 24, 25, hg. 7. 



A few years later Esper (Fortsetzung der Pflanzenthiere, II. Theil, 1 79S — 1806) published 

 two coloured plates (Tab. VIII & IX) labelled „Corallina pavonia" and " Corallina pavonia 

 variet.", but published them without explanation. It has not been possible to find any account 

 of these plates in the subsequent parts of the work, edited after Esper's death by Prof. 

 Hammer of Strasburg. Esper's Tab. VIII contains a figure which is an unmistakeable, though 

 not a good, representation of U. flaóellum, although to this plate Lamouroux himself (Hist. 

 Polyp. coralligènes p. 312) takes exception, saying that the plant hgured is so much divided 



