THE DISTRIBUTION OF PADINA PAVONICA 1 5 



data from untraced specimens, is not known. Johnson may have seen an annotation in a copy 

 (Cryptogamic Library, BMNH) of Turner & Dillwyn's (1805) Botanists' Guide . . . This interleaved 

 copy was Turner's working text; it bears (opposite p. 362) the annotation [MS D. Turner]: 

 '- j Ulva] pavonia. On rocks at Margate, abundant. Rev. G. R. Leathes'. This entry is not dated, but 

 Leathes collected in Margate in 1808 [Ulva echinata Roth; specimen in Smithian Herbarium, 

 LINN], well within Dawson Turner's periods of maximum activity and when he is likely to have 

 made such notes. It is strange, in view of 1808 being during the run of English Botany, edition 1, 

 and of the fact that Turner, Smith, Sowerby, and Leathes were all well known to each other, that 

 the record was not published there. Leathes probably collected specimens at the time; Hancock 

 Museum, Newcastle, holds an undated Margate specimen clearly attributable to him. We can 

 trace nothing about the other undated herbarium specimens from Margate listed above. 



Wood (1868, 1874) made precise statements in his introduction: '. . . Some years ago ... a 

 large colony . . . growing upon a ridge of rocks running seaward from Foreness Point, at Margate 

 [i.e. Long Nose Spit] ... it was the Padina pavonia itself- just the very last species I would have 

 expected to find at Margate, ... to find an alga which is mostly confined to the extreme south, off 

 the Margate shore, which lies open to the north wind and gets full benefit of it, was a circumstance 

 which could hardly be expected . . .'. No material collected by or connected with Wood has been 

 located, but there are contemporary specimens of uncertain provenance in the Gisby Collection 

 (Ramsgate Museum) which may have been collected in Thanet in 1871 and 1883. J. T. Neeve was 

 aware (1891, only 23 years after) of Wood's remarks about Padina in Kent, because he stated in 

 his Field Notes (Introduction) that he went '. . . to investigate the Foreness Point where I have read 

 that the beautiful Padina pavonia has been found many years ago by Rev. M. Wood the naturalist 

 . . .'; he never reported finding material. We (J. H. P. ; I. T.) have made a very careful search over 

 the area during the Kent Coast Survey period of more than ten years, but have never seen growing 

 there, nor in the drift, even a single specimen of P. pavonica (Price & Tittley, 1972). It seems, 

 therefore, that the first record from Kent must be regarded as dating from just later than 1805 

 (? 1808), and the latest as from before 1868, since Wood (loc. cit.) then wrote of '. . . Some years 

 ago . . .'. Unless further supporting evidence is forthcoming, the later Gisby records are open to 

 too much doubt to be admitted. 



Sussex 



Bognor : 



Hill (1760:608), '. . . On Bognor Rocks, 1750 . . .' [as Fucus fronde sessili reniformis 

 decussatim striata]. 



Herb. Mrs Robinson (BM) coll. 1831. 



[?] Herb. Merrifield and Ormerod (BTN) (provenance not clear, location may be Sidmouth). 



Sussex: 



Smith, Sowerby & Johnson (1846), places along the Sussex shores. 



Hill's manner of citation indicated that he almost certainly saw plants attached on Bognor 

 Rocks in 1750. Access was probably reasonably easy in his time. Although the Robinson specimen 

 could have been drift, it is in excellent condition; since it consists of several axes with sand 

 between their intertwined prostrate systems, it could not have been long detached. In Britain, cast 

 up material of Padina is now rare, either as fragments or (less commonly) as complete plants; dis- 

 integration in situ is more common. For continental coasts (Netherlands, Belgium, NE France) 

 there are earlier reports of material thrown up from the drift, especially still attached to small 

 stones. These reports are of a similar mid-19th century vintage to the Bognor Regis material and 

 the phenomenon may have occurred more frequently then, reflecting, it may be speculated, denser 

 populations. 



This single Sussex record is from the most easterly location on the south coast of England 

 actually represented by extant material, and modern verification would be of particular interest. 



