it which we h n and of which we can find any 



Philippines and described in 1842 by Berkeley l. c. 

 urn. llis description rui ■• *Dichonema 



flabelliforme, stipite distincto, margine fimbriato olivai 



-1 high, broad, membranaceous, obovato-flabellate, with a distinct 



olive-brown towards the shortly fimbriate margin. Threads 

 isisting of obtuse moniliform filamenl 

 cimen which is ilnis described is preserved in the Herbarium o\ the Royal 

 :amination of the structure shews tli;it it is nothing but a small and 

 .il plant of what is generally known as Avrainvillea papuana. 

 B - figun of the habit is quite good, but possibly owing to want of 



nition and to the fact that he was examining old and dried material, he lias 

 iented the filaments as being beaded and divided by cross walls. We append a 

 drawing from his own material in Herb. Kew re-examined by ourselves (fig. 85). Berkei 

 <-rn>r is perpetuated by Saccardo in his Sylloge Fungorum VI. 1888 p. 689, and is even 

 I by the substitution oi a false locality in ])lace of that of Cuming, viz:, * Rhipidonema 

 turn Berk. - Surinam il Iostmann)'\ The explanation of Saccardo's blunder in allocatiiiL; 

 lii kk to "Surinam (Hostmann)" is simple enough. Saccardo has unwittingly 



1. and regarded as one, two contiguous papers with similar headings by Berki 



nanv i. Berkeley. "Enumeration of Fungi, collected by Dr. Hostmann, in Surinam" 



in Hook London Journ. of Bot. I. 1842. pp. 138 — 142). 2. "Hnumeration of Fungi, collected 



1 Cuming Esq., F.L.S., in the Philippine Islands" (op. cit. pp. 142 — 157); and Saccardo 



k to the prior title on p. 138, as if it covered both papers, — an error which 



easier as the printers have headed every page of the two papers "Enumeration of 



Fungi" without distinction. 



It will be seen that the n" given by Berkeley for his Dichonetna erectum is "Cuming 



ompare fig. 84); and it is known that Berkeley shared his set of Cuming 's cellular 



plants with Montagni (see Hooker Lond. Journ. of Bot. III. 1N64. p. 659. footnote). Now 



that we have of this alga is a description of it as Udotea sordida by Montagne 



who quotes as its number "2233 Coll. Delessert". The description, which is founded 



on .1 1 specimen i^ as follows: — "Ins. Philippinae. Cuming. 4. Udotea sordida Montag. 



te vi\ ullo bulboso mox in frondem cuneato-flabelliformem fusco-olivaceam sordidam 



ttam dilatato. n. 2233 (Coll. Delessi : 



nembrai um bulbo stipitiformi uncialis, basi cuneata, semiorbicularis, zonis 



; trans lucem praesertim manifestis notata. Structura: fila dichotoma, alia materie 



fu co-succineo farcta, inter sese maxime intricata. Fructus 



iainii Dne. colore, structura, nee non defectu stipitis videtur diversa. 

 pecimine facta." Montagni in Hooker's London Journ. of Botany III. 



■ to Montagne's paper (l.c. p. 659), it is stated that "Dr. Montagne 



