6 9 



In 1812 Lamouroux (Mém. class. Polyp. coralligènes non entièrement pierreux, in Nouv. 

 Buil. Sci. Soc. Philomat. Paris. III. 181 2. p. 185) founded his genus Nesaea on three species 

 of Corallina i. e. C. Penicillus, C. Peniculum and C. Phoenix. 



In the following year, 1813, Lamarck (Sur les Polypiers empatés, in Ann. Mus. d'Hist. 

 Nat. 181 3 p. 297) took precisely the same three species from Corallina and founded on them 

 his genus Penicillus, ignoring the work of Lamouroux in 181 2. Lamarck describes the specimen 

 in his herbarium on which he founded his genus. It was 5 cm. high and the details of the 

 description exactly fit the plant of ll P. capitatus Ex Herb. Lamarck", which was lent to us 

 out of the Herbarium of the Paris Museum. Though Lamarck included in his genus the two 

 other species now known as Chamaedoris annulata and Rhipocephalus Phoenix, he admits 

 that he had never seen either of them. 



The foundation of Lamarck's genus Penicillus on the same species as Lamouroux's 

 Nesaea is the subject of remark by the latter author in 181 6 (Hist. Polyp. Corall. flex., pp. 253, 

 254). (But whether Lamarck knevv it or not, the name Nesaea had already been brought 

 into use for a genus of Lythrarieae by Commerson in 1789. It is true that both Lamouroux 

 and Lamarck believed they were treating of a genus of animals, so that in those days the 

 doublé use of the name Nesaea may have caused no confusion.) Lamouroux (loc. cit). describes 

 the generic structure of the plants, which he had only seen dried. The following six species 

 are enumerated: Nesea (the spelling is here altered by him) Phoenix, N. annulata, N. eriophora, 

 N Penicillus, N~. pyramidalis, and A r . duiuetosa, of which N. eriophora, N. pyramidalis and 

 N. dumctosa are new. N. pyramidalis was founded, as stated above, on two of Ellis and 

 Solander's figures. An interesting note is made both here and in the same author's Exposition 

 méthodique 1821 p. 23, in which emphasis is laid on the size and diameter of the branches, 

 as being a good specific character when united with other differences. Curiously enough, in 

 Exposition méthodique Nesaea eriophora is omitted. 



Schweigger (Beobacht. auf Naturhist. Reisen 1 S 1 9 p. 49) was the first to recognise 

 Penicillus to be a plant; and he describes its mode of development as being at first a closed 

 tube, from the apex of which a bunch of filaments finally breaks out. 



In 1824 another species was added by Lamouroux to the genus Nesea, namely N. nodulosa, 

 in Erevcinet's Voyage, Zool. p. 622 tab. 91 figs. 8 — 9; and in the same year Deslongchamps 

 (Encyclop. méthodique, Paris, Zoophytes 1824, p. 567) gives the first satisfactory detailed account 

 of the structure, placing N. annulata in a separate section from the other species. 



Blainville follows in 1834 (Man. d'Actinologie p. 553) with an enumeration of the species 

 of Penicillus, explaining that the generic name of Lamarck had prevailed rather than that of 

 Lamouroux, as Penicillus is more expressive than Nesaea. 



In 1841 Kutzing (Über die "Polypiers calcifères" des Lamouroux p. 11), apparently 

 ignorant of Lamarck's name Penicillus, replaced Lamouroux's name Nesea with the high-sounding 

 Coralliodendron ; and called attention to the fact that the filaments of the capitulum are not 

 septate but are unicellular throughout, since he had been able to convince himself of the 

 unbroken continuity of the inner tube by saturating it with tincture of iodine. The conclusiveness 

 of this experiment was unjustly denied by Montagne in 1845 (Plantes cellulaires exotiques, in 



