494 Howe: Phycological studies 



ally show the same character. In this latter connection may be 

 mentioned especially Hohenacker's Meeralgen, no. 4Q7, from Cher- 

 bourg, distributed as Codium tomentosum var. proliferum, and 

 no. 35 of Mary Wyatt's Algae Danmonienses. No. 628 of the 

 Phycotheca Boreali-Americana, from La Jolla, California, issued 

 as Codium Lindenbergii Binder, is, so far as we have seen it, a 

 somewhat coarser and less copiously branched plant than those 

 from Baja California, and its peripheral utricles are scarcely 

 thickened at the apex. If it had been collected in England, we 

 suspect that it would have been referred to Codium tomentosum 

 without serious question. The plants issued under this number, 

 so far as we have seen them, scarcely show evidence of flattening 

 beyond that resulting from pressure. They are certainly very 

 different in habit from plants of the South African C. Lindenbergii, 

 which is conspicuously flattened throughout, with the possible 

 exception of the stipe, and has segments often 2-3 cm. wide. The 

 utricles of the Baja California plants, it may be remarked, are 

 clavate, obovoid-clavate, truncate-clavate, or pestle-shaped, 82- 

 165/x in greatest width, and 380-500// long. 



Codium decorticatum (Woodw.) comb, now 



Ulva decorticata Woodw. Trans. Linn. Soc. 3: 55. 1797. 

 Codium elongatum Ag. Sp. Alg. 1: 454. 1822. 



La Paz, Vives 17. 



The plants reach a length of 5 dm., are sparingly branched, and, 

 in the older, are flattened now and then under the dichotomies; 

 the peripheral utricles are obovoid or broadly clavate, thin-walled, 

 obtuse, 137-520/i in maximum width, and 500-700^ long. 



The identity of Woodward's Ulva decorticata with Codium 

 elongatum was admitted by C. Agardh himself at the moment of 

 proposing the name C. elongatum and has been acknowledged also 

 by Kiitzing. We have not seen Woodward's specimen and do 

 not know that it exists, but his lengthy and rather detailed descrip- 

 tion can leave students of Codium in no reasonable doubt as to 

 what he actually had. His failure to recognize its affinity with 

 " Fucus tomentosus Huds." and his statement that "in substance 

 it differs from all other known marine Algae" appear a little 

 strange, yet from Goodenough and Woodward's paper on the 



