16 ART. 12. — K. YENDO. 



the articuli of branchlets are also an unusual phase. These 

 characters are ample enough to restore the genus, with slight 

 modification in the original diagnosis. This was also mentioned 

 in my former paper and noticed by Madam Weber. 



Gen. IV. LITHARTHRON W. v. B. 



? Rhodopeltis Schmitz, p. p. in Eng. Pflanzenfamil. Alg. p. 530. 

 Litharthron australe W. v. B. Coral. Sib. Exp. p. 104. 

 = Ampliiroa australis Sond. Plant. Preiss. p. 55. 

 ? = Rhodopeltis australis Schmitz (nee Harv.) p. p. in Eng. Pflanzen- 

 famil. Alg. p. 530. 



Conceptacles have not yet been found in this species, which 

 has, however some relation to MetagonioiUthon in the structure 

 of genicula and the mode of ramification. It was regarded by 

 some old writers as having close affinity with Eurytion. But 

 this is merely a superficial likeness in the shape of the articuli. 

 A study of the internal structure proves that it is an independent 

 genus.^^ KijTzmG^^ tended toward this view but did not actually 

 appropriate it. 



Harvey^^ described a nemathecium-like plant, calling it 

 Rhodopeltis australis, epiphytic on Litharthron australe. Schmitz^^ 

 seems to have regarded the epiphyte to be the propagating organ 

 of the host, which he classified among Rhizophyllidacece. Madam 

 Weber has written me that Prof. De Toni called her attention 

 to this matter. It is also mentioned by De Toni^' in the last 



1) After the publication of "Study of Genicula" Mr. Reinbold was so kind as to 

 send me a piece of the original specimens of Am'p. australis Sond. The specimen was of 

 great value in preparing the present paper. I am very glad to express my gratitude to him. 



2) Tab. Phyc. VIII. p. 25. 

 ■ 3) Phyc. Austr. PI. 264. 



4) ENGii. u. Pkantl : Pflanzenfamilien. Algte. p. 530. 



5) Serie. XV. p. 175. 



