SAPROI.KC.NIA 75 



that of S. mouoica, but the latter has distinctly smaller eggs. In S.floccosa 

 wo have, therefore, a new species of the Fcrax group." 



It is c\'ident from the aho\'e that this species is wvy near if not 

 the same as 5. mouoica var. glomerata, about the only apparent difference 

 being the bulging out of the egg membrane at the pits. 



Saprolegnia monoica var montana deRary. Bot. Zeit. 46: 617. 1888. 



DeBary says: "This differs from the typical form in the abundant, 

 irregularly arranged and longer stalks of the oogonia; in the longer and 

 more slender branches, and in the somewhat thicker oogonial wall with 

 few or no pits." 



Saprolegnia paradoxa Maurizio. IMitt. d. Deutsch. Fischerei-Vereins 7, 

 heft I: 46, figs. 10, II, 12. 1899. 

 Not S. paradoxa Petersen. 



The typical form, found on eggs of sea trout in the fish hatchery 

 at Munchhausen, Reg. Bez., Cassel, has androgynous antheridia in a 

 group below the oogonia; eggs 9-30 in an oogonium, 2~,-2-/'^ thick, or in 

 the small oogonia 17-22^1; oogonia terminal or intercalary, more or less 

 racemosely borne, spherical to long barrel-shaped or even thread-like 

 with a row of eggs (thread-like, egg-containing extension of oogonia 

 are not rare in S. ferax) ; often with a solid or hollow process running 

 in from the wall below as so frequently happens in the Ferax-Mouoica 

 group; wall of oogonium not very thick, pits distinct. A very great 

 oddity is the fact that the antheridial branches, which not rarely spring 

 from the long, neck-like extension of the oogonia, may in such cases 

 contain eggs. 



This species is obv^iously near S. monoica, from which it seems to 

 differ in the apical extension on many of the oogonia and possibly in 

 other ways. It is much like our S. litoralis, in which such extensions are 

 frequent, but the latter has much larger eggs. 



EXCLUDED OR DOUinFUL SPECIPIS NOT .MENTIONED IN THE TEXT 



Saproleonia xylopliila Kiitz. Phycologia Gencraii.s. Lipsiae, 1843. No information is 



given that could define the species. 

 5. miiinr Kiitz. (I. c. 1843) is probably an Empitm. 



S. deBaryi Walz. Bot. Zeit. 28: 537. 1S70. Proi)ably a Pythium: not a Saprolegnia. 

 S. siliquaeformis Reinsch. Jahrb. f. wiss. Bot. ll:29.v 1S78. This is Monohlepharis prolif- 



era, according to Cornu and Fischer. 

 5. Schachlii Frank. Krankhciten der Pilzen, p. 384. Berlin, 1881. This is probably 



Pvtliiiim (leBarvainim. 



