I i Mikkw and H and retaining nothing more 



t | lan • myms cited by them, namely Rhipilia longicaulis Km/ . a planl which 



they had nev< ■ lab. Phyc. VIII. tab. 28, II). The numerous 



. and studied by Mikkw and B 11, and described and 



by them .1- A 1 Journ. Bot. XXVII 1889 p. ;<>. tab. 288, figs. 1 — 5, — 



they, with the Guadeloupe, and St. Thomas "Challenger", all marked 



NS j t |, ., ■ ' b\ those auth nt what Mikkw and Boodle intended to denote by their 



nami Dr. Howe lias rightly shown, these specimens must all be trans- 



| to A D ne Howe, op. cit. pp. 508, 509). Murray and Boodli blundered 



in addin Kütz. as a synonym to their . /. longicaulis. 



h is perfectly clear what Mikkw and Boodli meant by their . /. longicaulis, and it is 

 cl( tr what they meant by their A. Mazei. A. longicaulis Muit. & Boodle = A. nigricans 

 and . /. Ma i Muit. & Boodle = . /. longicaulis Howe (excluding Rhipilia longi- 

 caulü K ;. We say, "excluding Rhipilia longicaulis Kütz.", because we cannot agree with 

 I )r. Howi that it is synonymous with .1. Mazei Murr. <!v Boodle, at least il" Ki rziNG's figure 

 | lal'. Phyc. VIII. p. [3. 1858 tab. 28. fig. II) of his plant is at all accurate as to the character 

 and dimensions "l its frond filaments. Kützing states that the branched filament in this drawing 

 is "60 mal vergrössert" and also indicates that magnification on the plate itself. If careful 

 measurements 1"- made, it can easily be calculated that the frond filaments of R longicaulis 

 Kutz. taper .1- ui- state also under our . /. Elliottit] from about 25 p. at the coloured torulose 

 part (where in dried specimens the normal dimensions of the filament are always best preserved) 

 down to 5 -i. at their colourless apices. And further, these dimensions cörrespond almost exactly 

 with those shown by ür. Howe to be characteristic <>i his A. levis (Buil. Torrey Bot. Club 

 XXXII. 1905 pp. 565, 566), which is synonymous with the type of the A. sordida of Crouan, 

 M & Schramm, and Mikkw & Boodle. It may be urged that the well-developed rhizome 

 depicted by Kützing is by no means a characteristic of A. sordida, but neither is it a character 

 of typical A. Mazei. Dr. Howe (Buil. Torrey Bot. Club XXXVII. 1905 p. 586) states in an 

 ■Addendum" to his paper that he has examined fragments of the flabellum and stipes of 

 Kctzing's Rhipilia longicaulis, and adds : - ■ "These indicate clearly, we [Ür. Howe] think, 

 "that tl ics is the same as the more recently published Avrainvillea Mazei Murr. & 



1 >r. Howe gives no measurements of the filaments of that specimen. We are 

 unable to decide whether they cörrespond with the measurements calculated from 

 ; '. ' 

 1 )r. Howe (1i cit.) continues, "The filaments of the flabellum are now and then 

 e, but they are mostly cylindrical without constrictions, excepl for the strong 

 leave the dichotomy; the ends of some of the branches are thin-walled and 

 •ut they are not destitute of chlorophyll and should not be considered hairs". 

 thi does nol cörrespond with the partially torulose and apically attenuated 



description nor with the figure of the enlarged filament in Kützing's 

 • coloured lengths of the filament are conspicuously torulose, divide dichoto- 

 colourless slender terminal ramuli. Thus even if KüTZINg's magnification 



