1919] Gardner: New Pacific Coast Marine Algae IV 491 



his Codium dimorphum from West Patagonia, and after comparison 

 came to the conclusion that the plants from Patagonia and those from 

 Puget Sound are identical, and refers the Puget Sound material to 

 C. dimori^hum. F. S. Collins, in a recent publication (1918. p. 88), 

 has accepted Miss Ilurd's interpretation, and, in addition, has referred 

 all of the previously reported C. adhacrens of the Pacific Coast of 

 North America to C. dimorphum. After having studied material of 

 the so-called C. adhaerens from a number of localities ranging from 

 Sitka, Alaska, to Laguna Beach, Southern California, and also having 

 had an opportunity, through the courtesy of INIiss Hurd, of examin- 

 ing a bit of the; type material of Svedelius's C. dimorphum, I do not 

 find myself in accord with the published views of either ]\Iiss Hurd 

 or Mr. Collins, as to the identity of these two groups of plants. After 

 having also compared our Pacific Coast "C. adhaerens" with the 

 material of that species from Italy, it seems quite certain that no 

 true C. adhacrens has been found on our coast, a conclusion at which 

 Collins has also arrived. The most of the material which I have 

 examined seems more closely related to the Patagonian species than 

 to the European, but sufificiently different from the Patagonian C 

 dimorphum to warrant the establishment of a new species, for which 

 I am proposing the name Sctchellii. 



From the various collections mentioned above, I have selected as 

 the type a specimen collected in February, 1897, at Pacific Grove, 

 California, by ]\Irs. J. M. Weeks. The cotypes were distributed as 

 cited above. The material is in full fruit and seems to be typical of 

 the species as it grows on the coast of Central California. All of the 

 other material which I have examined from the Pacific Coast is sterile 

 and represents considerable variation in the vegetative characters, par- 

 ticularly in the shapes and sizes of the utricles, from the type material. 

 However, I am provisionally referring them all to C. Setchellii, await- 

 ing further careful comparison and extended study, particularly of 

 the plants growing in the northern portion of the range, and during 

 the fruiting season, which seems to be mostly in the winter, when a 

 final and more satisfactory disposition of them may be made. 



The chief differences between C. Setchellii and C. dimorphum are 

 in tlie characters of the utricles and in the method of growth of the 

 fronds. The utricles of C. dimorphum, as described and figured by 

 Svedelius, and as shown in the material which I have examined, are 

 of two modifications, those with thin end walls and those with thick 

 and lamellate end walls. The former are 5-lfj. thick, and the latter 



