210 МВ. 6. MURRAY ON NEW SPECIES OF CAULERPA, 
Siphonocladacese, and it may at all events have value in the absence of other evidence. 
It is possible to bring to bear against this view of the relationship of Caulerpa with 
the Valoniacez an argument founded on the notable resemblances of outward form to 
diverse higher plants exhibited by Сашегра, and to conclude that, since these express 
no relationship, neither should the present instances be held.to do so. But, as I need 
hardly point out, these resemblances are superficial, while. the one I rest upon corre- 
sponds in minute structure as well, and, moreover, the resemblance is to plants which 
every one admits to be on other grounds closely allied. | 
Appended to Harvey's description of Caulerpa cactoides, Ag. (Phycologia Australiea, 
tab. xxvi.) is a note to the following effect :—* In the distribution of my Australian 
duplicates I have referred this species to C. corynephora, Mont., and, I think, correctly ; 
for though the figure given by Dr. Montagne represents a smaller and rather more 
slender specimen than the one here chosen for illustration, it differs in no essential 
character; and some of my Australian specimens are equally small and narrow. My 
reference to the earlier C. cactoides of Brown and Turner is open to graver objections, 
and yet I cannot persuade myself that the plant now figured is not identical with what 
they had in view ; for our plant abounds along the whole coast visited by Dr. Brown, 
and could not well have escaped his notice, whereas no specimen quite agreeing with 
Turner's figure and description has been found by recent collectors who have carefully 
explored the Australian shores. I suppose, therefore, that Turner had before him a- 
badly dried and possibly distorted specimen, and was thus led to figure and describe the 
ramenta as ‘imbricated on all sides,’ and not strictly distichous, as they invariably are 
on all the many specimens Т have examined. Тп all other respects our plant sufficiently 
agrees with Turner’s description, and the name cactoides is quite expressive of its 
succulent and robust characters.” 
There has always been some doubt as to these points; and Agardh (Till Alg. Syst. 1. 
р. 44), in his monograph of Caulerpa, has indicated uncertainty as to the identity of 
C. corynephora, Mont., with C. cectoides, and De Toni (Sylloge, vol. i. p. 485) has 
followed him. Тһе origin of all the uncertainty is no doubt Dawson Turner's figure on 
tab. 171 of his ‘Fuci, referred to by Harvey in the above passage. Fortunately the 
very specimen figured by Dawson Turner is preserved in Robert Brown's Herbarium in 
the British Museum, and it unmistakably shows the source of his error. "Turner had 
not the excuse of a “badly dried” or “distorted” specimen as Harvey charitably 
supposes—he simply attempted to figure as it was a rather short and branching 
specimen, of which the branches plainly overlie. From е ‘пафаге of this branching 
it would be impossible to otherwise dry or display it—and Dawson Turner, having 
imperfectly examined it, concluded hastily that the ramenta were *imbricated on 
all sides;" it was simply an error resulting in a bad figure, by no means worthy of 
a place in the author's splendid contribution to the founding of Phycology. Harvey 
was therefore right in his surmise that his plants were the same as Robert Brown's, 
and I have much pleasure in bearing this direct testimony to it (see Pl. LII. figs. 6 & 7). 
As to C. corynephora, Mont., we must hold it also to be the same species. Хо doubt 
Montagne was naturally misled in the same way as to the position of the ramenta of 
