1925] Setchell-Gardner: Melanophyceae 611 



Our i)roblem lies in the distribution of the bulk of our plants 

 between '*C Twrnerb" and '^C. MertensH," one or both, and in the 

 proper combination to use by which to designate them. Castaria 

 Turneri was first proposed by Greville in 1830, when he established 

 the genus, in the following language: "Fucus membranacea, Integra, 

 linearis, multi-costata. Fructus ignotus. " No additional diagnosis 

 was given for the species. The diagnosis is wholly inadequate to dis- 

 tinguish the species, were it not for the fact that he cites Fucus costatus 

 Turner (Hist. Fuc, 1819, pi. 226), and Laminaria costata Agardh 

 (Sj'st., 1824, p. 269), who in turn cites Turner's plant as a synonym. 

 Turner proposed F. costatus in 1819, thus antedating Agardh 's L. 

 costata^ first used in 1820 (Sp., vol. 1, p. 109). Turner's description 

 and figure were based upon material collected "On the west coast of 

 South America" by Menzies, and is so complete as to leave no doubt 

 that his plant was a true species of Castaria as now recognized. As 

 diagnosed, his species was "a foot and a half or more long, nearly 

 linear, about two inches wide." He states that he had but a single 

 specimen and that was pressed very flat, so he relied largely upon the 

 description and figure of Menzies for his information. We are thus 

 left very much in doubt as to whether Menzies' knowledge was of a 

 normal medium-sized plant, or, as it seems to us more likely, of a young 

 or a dwarf specimen. We have, on the California coast, plants which 

 answer very well to the description of '^ F. cast aid}" except as to size. 

 They are wider and longer, three to six inches wide and three to six 

 feet long, although Saunders (1895, p. 57) reports fruiting plants 

 from Pacific Grove, California, which are two inches wide and two 



f 



feet long. We feel fairly certain luitil we can obtain further knowl- 

 edge of South American plants, that the citation of South America is 

 erroneous and that our long, narrow forms are of the type species. 

 Observing the Vienna Code, therefore, they should be listed as 

 Castaria costata (Turner) Saunders. 



Costaria Mertensvi of J. G. Agardh (1848, p. 140) as diagnosed 

 differs in no essential particulars from the diagnosis of C. Turneri 

 Postels and Ruprecht (1840, p. 12, pi. 24) which Agardh quotes as a 

 synonym. Whether or not C. Turneri Post, and Rupr. is the same as 

 Fucus costatus Turner, which Postels and Ruprecht quote as a 

 synonym, C. Mertensii J. Ag. has no legitimate right to supplant C. 

 Turneri Post, and Rupr., and we are thus disregarding it in our 

 account. 



