290 rniversity of California Puhlimtions in Botany [Vol. 8 



neither determined, to our satisfaction, whether true E. viridis occurs 

 on our coast nor the number of species of its general type ultimately 

 to be found in our territory. We have, therefore, merely recorded 

 the specimens alreadj' distributed in the Phj'cotheca Boreali-Ameri- 

 eana (no. 2236). 



2. Entocladia codicola S. and G. 

 Plate 19, fig. 7 



Filaments light green, branching profusel}-, at maturity forming 

 a continuous layer in the center of the mass with tapering free ends 

 around the margin ; young cells 3-4/a diam., 1-2.5 times as long, 

 terminal cells slender and conical ; cells in the center of the thallus 

 5-8ju. diam. ; pyrenoids single ; reproduction unknown. 



Growing in the membrane, at the tips of the utricles of Codium 

 fragile. Central and southern California. 



Setchell and Gardner, Phyc. Cont. I, 1920, p. 293, pi. 24, fig. 7 a, b. 



Entocladia codicola seems closely related to Entocladia viridis 

 Reinke (1879, p. 476, pi. 6, f. 6-9), found growing in the membrane 

 of Dcrhesia; but it is a larger plant with the filaments much more 

 compact in the center, forming, in fact, a pseudo-parenchj^matous disk 

 with free filaments around the margin. The cells are shorter than 

 those of E. viridis, some being even shorter than the diameter. In 

 the pseudo-parenchymatous character of the center of the disklike 

 frond it resembles Epicladia Flustrae Reinke (1888, p. 241, nomen 

 nudum, 1889, p. 31, pi. 24, 1889cf, p. 86), but the dimensions given 

 for that species are greater in general than those in ours. Reproduc- 

 tive bodies have been observed in the cells of the central portion of 

 the disk in E. codicola, but the nature of these, their method of escape, 

 and their subsequent behavior have not been determined. Until more 

 is known concerning these later phases of the plant, its proper placing 

 must remain somewhat in doubt. It is here placed provisionally with 

 Entocladia on account of its endophytic habit of growth, rather than 

 with Epicludia, which has the habit of growing on the outside of the 

 host. This habit of growth seems to be the only one by which the 

 two genera are distinguished, so far as the diagnoses reveal. Little, 

 however, is known concerning the reproduction in Epicladia, and 

 until that matter can be cleared up it can have but little claim to 

 generic distinction. Reinke expressed doubt as to the validity of 

 the genus when he diagnosed it (1889). Collins (1909) has retained 



