420 JOHS. HUVI l'l IKUSKN 



Hrand lins {^ivfii vciv wi'i^^hly rcnsons 192."). p. 324 ft»r nol fol- 

 lowing Wil lo in c-allin<^ llu" present species hv Af«:ir(iirs nanie Prolo- 

 cocciis ririiiis. Tliere ean be lU) doiiht tliat the lirst to describe the 

 species si> well that il was recoj^nisahle was Naj^eli l.c.'. Hence it is 

 only fair thai his specilic name shouhl he retained. As, however, the 

 species cannot well bc dassed in the same }»enus wilh Plciirococciis viil- 

 (laris Men.. I prefer to iise llie new j^cneric name j^ivcn it by Brand. 



The species is uncommon in Iceland. It was lound in 7 sam|)les in 

 all. and I have nowhcre seen such exlcnsivc »^rowths as arc common in 

 Denmark and othcr Kiiro|)ean countries In Iceland it has bccn found 

 on woodwork, stones and rocks -100, -lOcS) and in one sample oriiiinatinfi 

 from tiiif at the base of a wall 10;. 



Pleurococcus vulgaris Mencgh. Boye Petersen 1915, p 319 Tab I, 

 lig. 2, 3. 



N. Icel. 21() — N. W. Icel. 261 — S. Icel. 270, 275, 280, 292. 



In the above-mentioned samples I have ascertained the prescncc of 

 a form which is (|iiitc in accord wilh the /'. inihjai-is mentioned by me 

 in 1915 {,1. c). By the aid of chlor-zinc-iodine I was able to demon- 

 strate pyrenoids in the cells. just as also the dimensions of thcse wcrc 

 the same as I have stated. .\ccording to the data it is doubtiul wliether 

 Ihis form is identical wilh the genuine P. viihjaris Men. Monog. No- 

 slochinearum Torino 1843, p. 30 cit. after Brand 1925 , and possibly 

 P i'ulfiaiis Boye P. should be given a new name. It has becn impossible 

 for me to decide this, since I have had no access cithcr to Meneghini s 

 original figures or to any original specimen. Borzi, however, saw an 

 original specimen (1895, p. 207 . and ascertained that the chromatophore 

 contained a pyrenoid. Chodat used this to establish the dillerence be- 

 tween P. vulcjaris Men. and P. luiUjd/is Nag. i= ]\ Xcujclii Chod. ((Mi od at 

 1897. p. 117, 1902. p. 279 . Laler (1909) Chodat formed the opinion 

 that P. iHilf/aris Men. was a developmental stage of a Prasiola. and Brand 

 thinks so too (1925, p. 338\ I have previously dcscribed a P. calvariiis 

 1915, p. 32(1) which Puymaly referred to Prasiola Icprosa Kiitz. Fuy- 

 nialy 1920, p. 189 and which is no doubt identical with the P. inilf/aria 

 of (Ihodat and iirand. or at any rate with a number of the forms 

 which tliese authors refer to the species. In niy paper J915 1 dclined 

 the dillerence between /'. calcarius and P. inilf/aris, the former of wliich 

 undoubledly shows allinity with Prasiola wliile the latter is evidenlly 

 dilferent. Neither Brand nor Chodat seem to distinguish between 

 Ihese Iwo forms, and only a doser study of tliem, coupled with a study 

 of Mcncghini's original tcxt. figures. and specimens will be able to 

 clear u|) the matter. 



Myrmecia pyriformis Boye V. n. sp. 



(".elhilis jiinioribus globosis, diam. 5//, vel ovalibus, long. 9 /^ lal. 5//, 

 Cellulis adultis |)yrif()rmibus ad lignum aflixis, long. 16—24//, lat. 15— 

 20//; membrana chl«)ro/.incico jodurato coerulescenfe. partc exleriorc plus 

 minus incrassata. (^Iiromalophoro parielali. pyrcnoide inslructo. /oo- 



