120 OOCYSTIS AND EREMOSPHiERA, 



records nearly cover the same ground, viz., 17-25 x 8-14/Jt. Kirch- 

 ner (for 0. rupestris) extends West's figures a little both ways, 

 long. 1.3-27, lat. 6-12/i,. In all cases, it will be noted that the 

 length is just about twice the breadth; in the 14 Australian 

 specimens whose dimensions are given above, the axial ratio 

 varies from l'7-2"5:l-0, the average being nearly 2:1. 



Eichler, Flory Wodor. ok. Miedzyrzeca, 1892, T. x., £.25, has 

 figured what he identifies as 0. JVagdii, cell. long. 30-44, lat. 17- 

 25 /x, but is probably J\'ephrocytiuni Agardhiannm var. majui^ 

 Nag., Gatt. Einz. Alg., T. iii., c, fig.i, k, p,( = X Ndgelii Grun., = 

 N. ohesum W. West). The cells are too broad for 0. Ndyplii, 

 and one also is distinctly reniform. If considered an Oocystis, it 

 would fall better undei' my 0. Chodati, infra. 



I include three forms in the type, which are generally found 

 intermingled, viz., (l)eniptic-oblong with broadly rounded ends, 

 the sides and ends meeting in one even curve, (2)oblong with 

 subtruncately rounded ends, (3) cylindrical: ridpVl. vii., f. 1, 2, 3, 

 i-espectively. 



Var. Africana (G. S. West) mihi. (Text-fig. 1 2c). 



"Var. minima; autosporis 4 vel 8, dense compactis; chromato- 

 phoris multe-lobatis parietalibus singulis vel binis." G. S. 

 West, I.e. 



Syn., 0. elliptica var. Africana G. S. West, Frw. Algie, Ann. 

 South Afr. Mus., Vol. ix., 1912, p.76, f.l4, 17. I have not yet 

 noted this form, which G. S. West has described from Angola. 

 It differs from the type only in having a lobed, or fragmented, 

 chloroplast. The corresponding form of 0. Novce Spmlice, how- 

 ever, is described here under that species. G. S. West gives 

 long. cell. 8-1 3/x; lat. cell. 4"5-7/x. 



Var. macrospora (Turner) mihi. (Text-fig. 1 Of). 



Cellulse oblongje vel oblongo-elliptica?, quam f. typica circa 

 duplo majores. 



Syn., Hydrocytiuni macrospo7'iim Turner, Alg. E. Ind., 1892, 

 p. 154, T. XX., f.32; 0. sphaivica Turn., ibid., p. 155, no figure. 

 This cannot, of course, be a species of Hydrocytium (Characium), 

 as that propagates by zoospores, not autospores. Turner's dimen- 



