76 COLLINS AND HERVEY. 



& Eaton; with one exception, sterile, all had plurilociilar sporangia, 

 none unilocular. Of the Bermuda plant we have examined many 

 specimens of different ages and from different stations; with the 

 exception of a very few, very young or very old individuals, sterile, 

 all bear both uni- and plurilocular sporangia on the same individual. 

 To add to the confusion, the plant from Florida, distributed as C. 

 mediterranea, P. B.-A., No. 481, when compared with the Bermuda 

 plant now seems to be distinct both from that and from Cladosiphon 

 mediterraneus Kiitz. The peripheral filaments seem to be not so 

 much laterally attached to the external longitudinal filaments as 

 continuations of them or their branches; the basal cell, up to 25 fM 

 diam., followed by several similar colorless cells rapidly diminishing 

 to about 12 fx diam.; above this begins the peripheral filament proper, 

 with colored cells about 7-9 pL diam. ; this is several times dicho- 

 tomous, the cells, except the few lower ones, spherical, increasing in 

 size up to 15 fjL, sometimes to 20 /j. diam., the filaments strongly in- 

 curved; unilocular sporangia, 70-80 X 55-60 /i in the lower forkings. 

 The frond does not exceed 10 cm. in height, and has few branches. 

 Harvey's figure of Mesogloia mresccns, 1852, PI. X. B, was drawn 

 from a plant from Sand Key, Florida, and we have examined tv.'o 

 specimens collected by Harvey at that place at that time; they agree 

 with P. B.-A., No. 481, except that they have no fruit. In Harvey's 

 plate fig. 4 represents quite well the upper part of a peripheral filament 

 of this plant, but is quite different from a filament of C. vircsccns. 

 We have found only one European specimen agreeing with P. B.-A., 

 No. 481; this is "No. 572, Societe dauphinoise, 1882, Cladosiphon 

 mediterraneus Kiitz. (Vidit Bornet, 1882) Portofino (Ligurie orientale) 

 sur les feuilles de Posidonia Caulini. Dr. A. Piccone, Mai, 1876." 

 This specimen was received by one of us from Dr. Piccone. Sauva- 

 geau, 1897, p. 46, discusses Castagnca, assuming correctly enough that 

 if Castagnea is maintained, Cladosiphon Kiitzing should be divided 

 between Castagnea, Nemacystus etc. But the name Cladosiphon 

 clearly antedates Castagnea, and under the international rules should 

 be retained for C. viediterraneus and its congeners. Eudesme J. G. 

 Agardli seems to have no claim to distinctness from Cladosiphon. 

 We refrain from making any new combinations, in the hope that 

 Kuckuck's work on the Phaeophyceae may soon appear, and bring 

 order out of the present chaos. 



